This Unnatural Obsession With Sex

by YLH

While  the terrorists that Our Mullahs provided the ideological basis for and helped create continue to wreak havoc on Pakistan – a country whose creation the Mullah-in-chief Maududi had doggedly opposed and had worked to weaken throughout his miserable, pathetic and parasitic existence –  it should be placed on record what flute our Maududian Neroes are playing while Rome burns. 

A favorite here on PTH – indeed our resident Maududian –  has – at a time when daily death toll from terror attacks is in hundreds- taken umbrage with “sex parties” (orgies in Pakistan?)  happening in Karachi which according to him leads to violence.   In a post titled “the consequences of so called liberalism”  he writes:

Basit’s party was going well until one of Basit’s friends, named Nasir, left the party with a girl named Rimla to his flat located at Saba Commercial. This provoked Basit and his friends, which included Rao Junaid, Owais and others. The group of friends then went to Nasir’s flat where Junaid after an exchange of hot words pulled out his TT pistol and opened fire thus killing Basit’s gunman.He claimed that Rimla is a student of MBA and lives in the Defense Housing Authority area as a paying guest as her family is in the USA.

“These people belong to rich families and organise private dance parties especially on weekends, and as the use of drugs and alcohol is so common it is quite easy to provoke a person who is under the influence of such things, which results to such incidents,” he said.

The SHO added that the alleged accused, Rao Junaid, is an owner of a showroom and also belongs to a rich family. The police have arrested Junaid and started the investigation.

When asked as to what he thought of the terrorists from Mansoora and their activities,  his buddy – a typical liar type from our crooked and parochial right wing press –  wrote in typical circular fashion :  “R u a Taliban? whats bad with dance parties, sex dates , drinking, killing? how dare you point your fingure towards liberals as your not allowed to do us but to condemn Talibans?”

This is another theme with these crooks. Their logic reads like this:   “Liberals are extremist because they call for a ban on Khatibs who call for violence.  Liberals are extremist because they allegedly have orgies and sex parties.  Liberals are extremist because they parade their women naked… and what is wrong with those who blow up in Peshawar?   They are good moderate humanist Muslims fighting Amrika!!!”    How does one argue with such logic?

For the specimen of such superior humanity who graces us with his presence from time to time and gives us dishonorable mention in his newspaper,  the greatest issue with Pakistan is women’s clothing.   In a piece titled “dress or undress”,  he has taken umbrage to caprice and jeans for women and little girls.  Indeed he goes on to lampoon and lambast and almost suicide bomb a poor shop wallah  for being such a kafir and keeping unIslamic clothing for little children. I wonder why their Islam starts and ends with women’s clothing (and ofcourse Qadiyani conspiracy to take over the world)  ?

I have often wondered about this unnatural and ungodly obsession with sex that our Mullahs and other assorted witchdoctors seem to have.   To see this mentality at work, one needs to read “Daastan Iman Faroshon ki” – a sexually frustrated novel/collection of utterly disgusting stories in which Christian women going around having sex with pious Muslim men to seduce them and to use them to defeat  Sallahuddin Ayubi. Most of them see the error of their ways and become Muslim.    That book was dedicated to “that son of the nation who will become Sallahuddin Ayubi”.   Similarly many a Pakistani film post Zia period is full of invocations of Islam and many a hero of these films is to be seduced unsuccessfuly by some clever and diabolical haseena who ultimately converts to Islam and changes her ways.   Nadeem Farooq Paracha famously wrote about “International Gorillay” (International Guerillas)  – a film around this theme.

Perhaps that is all there is to it-  all the violence seems to stem from a deep seated sexual frustration of the Mullahs.  It is because of this frustration,  their interpretations of religion revolve around women’s clothing only.  No wonder one British-born Hizb-ut-tahrir activist of the flowing beard variety informed me : “Ofcourse everything was great during the Khilafah – women wore the veil and obeyed their husbands.”

Enough said.

Post Script: Islam is a rational faith.  It is not limited to the regulation of women’s clothing and conduct.  Let us not make a mockery of Islam by assuming that these Mullahs represent it.   The Mullahs are an insult to the great Islamic civilization which has contributed to the march of human progress as well as anyone else.



Filed under Islam, Islamism

213 responses to “This Unnatural Obsession With Sex

  1. Gabban


    I think this topic is not required at this time for Pakistan.

  2. Mustafa Shaban

    I agree that our some of our Mullahs are sick minded, foolish people, majority of mullahs today do not know anything about true islam and only know an extremely conservative or Taliban version of Islam which is not the real Islam. Mullahs have destroyed our image, religion and twisted the minds of many. There are some good religious scholars out there that are modeerate and understand the truth.

  3. sun

    ylh, prove your post script that islam is rational faith…this is one thing which every muslim fails to do so. Prove through thru your book that these mullahs are wrong,citing only certified books .
    ylh , u r wrong .. forget pakistan even muslim masses in india , bangladesh etc are with mullahs & taliban & problem is that good muslims like u are giving legitimacy by sticking to the book without knowing.

  4. Mustafa Shaban

    Gabban: I think this topic should be regulrly discussed, because these people indoctrinate our people and youth. A society decays and dies when the intellectuals and scholars become curropt, it is important to maintain good scholars and teachers in society otherwise it will go the wrong way very quickly.

  5. Qandeel

    Homosexual orgies, on the other hand, might be rampant amongst the Taliban rank and file. Leading the Taliban to include the following in their ‘book of rules’: “Mujahedeen have to avoid company of the youngsters without having beard, specially keeping them in camps.” There was also somethiing probhibiting them from keeping pictures of ‘handsome, unshaven young boys’ on their cell phones. (It’s possible suicide bombing has shot up as a direct result of such prohibitions)

  6. yasserlatifhamdani


    While this article is unsigned… if you are allergic to any reference to Islam, then so be it.

    And no the masses in Pakistan are not with the taliban or the Mullahs… the masses of Pakistan however theo-centrically Muslim… which means that they have a deep cultural and spiritual affiliation with Islam which is an unbreakable bond. Any attempt at reform and modernity that fails to realize this will automatically be rejected by them… therefore Islam does have a place in Pakistani society … though not in the constitution or the state …and definitely not as state religion… but rather as the lifeblood of its adherents who are in a majority in this country.

    Islam can be a positive reinforcement of the idea of a plural inclusive and democratic non-denominational nation state….

  7. Stray

    Love this post – not so much for what it actually says, but the manner in which it directly implies where the real focus ought (not) to be.

  8. PMA

    This article is about Mullahs. But which Mullahs? All of them; some of them or; most of them? Then again Mullahs of all sects or only the followers of Maulana Maududi? Are there any good Mullahs or all of them are bad Mullahs? Some clarification is needed here.

  9. Ali Abbas

    IMO, no religion is rational. Its based on faith and in moderate and progressive societies that are based on the welfare of the people and not on some mythical notion of a Golden Era with Caliphs and their conqueror ghazi studs, religion should not be part of the public discourse on the working of the state.

    Today, Hamid Mir termed those who claim that the struggle against the various Wahabi militias that are killing thousands of innocents is Pakistan’s war, are liberal facists! Clearly, something has gone wrong in this land, when this guy is supposedly a popular TV host who, without appearing in any elections, claims to speak for the masses. After watching the shockingly immature press session between Hillary and the nasty and immature brats posing as jouralists (barring the decent guy from PTV and Naveen, who didn’t have the chance to prove her incompetance like the other 4) , one can say that Maudodi has won out in Pakistan. Zia’s children have grown in all their warped delusions and in partnership with their Taliban comrades and their older generation of anti-democratic dictator lovers uncles, (Roedad Khan and Gohar Ayub, take a bow!), are ready to inflict further wounds on this hapless nation.

  10. kashifiat


    We are well aware with your SEX ideology at, its good to share with others about YOUR sickness problem & background

  11. Mustafa Shaban

    @ PMA: there are good scholars and mullahs, some of them are amazing….while most are very problematic.

    @Ali Abbas: I completely disagree with you,

    1. Everything is discussable and debatable, nobody has the right to bar a certain people with certain opinions from forums or discussion becuz of thier views. This does not happen in a democracy or liberal society. Also the history of Islam’s Golden Age is debatble but there is a lot of good things and few bad things about it, there is a lot of evidence showing that it was a prosperous time for muslims, why do you disagre?? What do you think happened in those times?

    2. In the interview with Hilary, I only saw the part with Talat asking questions and so far I think he did fantastic, also I have seen the othr Tv hosts, they are good and probably asked good questions. If you think that Talat was too tough, wait till you go to American media especially Fox News and Bill O Reilly then you will see harsh interviews. Those people are total bigots, while Talat was brave in asking tough questions and not letting Hilary go so easily.

  12. Wajid

    Dear Ali Abbas,

    I totally agree with your fantastic comments. Talat and the ‘team’ were pathetic as usual.

  13. yasserlatifhamdani

    kashifiat mian,

    I have been laughing so hard after watching your little youtube video that I can barely stand up now….

    But seriously as with most things you claim about me I was not aware of the fact that I owned the website… but that video shows just how disgusting you are as a human being.

    If the editor interviews an alternative voice, it does not become her opinion. Similarly if a few people start a village (which was unfairly shut down by naseeb) vis a vis lesbians and gays… that is not the Editor’s fault.

    Ofcourse to some one like you, a follower of Fitnah-e-Maududiat, indulges in backbiting (you know what backbiting is likened to in Islam don’t you?) and slander and libel… it doesn’t make sense.

    But thank you for this entertainment that proves this article right many times over i.e. that you are a disgusting liar and a crook and that you are obsessed with Non-issues.

    I need not even have posted this article… I should have just put up your video to make my point. Thanks.

  14. yasserlatifhamdani

    The most hilarious part of the video is where you try to prove a conspiracy by linking to naseeb…

    It is hilarious because has always promoted itself as a Naseeb Networks company…

    But great going genius.

  15. sun

    ylh, like a typical muslim you skirted the question of proving the rationality of islam thru authorised sources.. but you claimed it similarly now u r claiming that muslims do not support taliban.. whereas my interactions personally & postings on the net are contrary to your claim..

    Plural society, democracy, reforms etc are wishful thinking under islam & i agree with you that society will automatically reject it because so called good & moderate muslims will sit quietly or they ‘ll be eliminated..

    well then what is the purpose of the articile?

  16. yasserlatifhamdani


    Could you tell me who you’ve interacted with personally? Don’t base your opinion on what you’ve heard from a select group of Indian Muslims.

    As for me skirting questions- to prove that Islam is a rational faith to you is not a priority for me.
    The priority for me as a Pakistani is to see Pakistan succeed as a modern, inclusive and plural state and I am frankly not enamored by this approach of Islam-bashing, because that only alienates reasonable and thinking sections of Pakistani society and drives them into the arms of the extremists.

  17. Wajid

    Lol- this video is really funny, and on top of that this guy proved himself a total ass 😀

  18. H

    aren’t ‘liberals’, and i would include myself in that category, as extreme in our mullah bashing as mullahs are of us? yes, they may be obsessed with women’s clothing, but we are obsessed with the mullahs! ignoring the violence, of course, aren’t we equally at fault for this lack of tolerance or understanding? equally aggressive in our words? Being the ‘educated’ ones, as we so often like to proclaim, aren’t we more at fault?  It seems that all this education has taught us is just big English words that we use to constantly bash a people who don’t really speak the language. the so-called ‘liberals’ should be the first to live and let live, but are we doing that or are we doing the exact same thing that we accuse the mullahs of doing – saying we are right and the other side are wrong, not being tolerant of the others’ opinion? are we truly liberal in the way we think, or is that something we just like to call ourselves because it sounds nice while in reality we are quite narrow-minded? arent we lightning quick in labelling and categorising people and then completely writing off what they are saying because of that label we gave them?
    if we really believe that we are the ‘educated’ ones, the onus is on us, the so-called liberals, to really reflect on what we are doing to help this stand-off situation that we find ourselves in. and i believe that if you do sincerely reflect on this, you will conclude that we are in fact not any better than those we accuse. if this education, that we are such proud owners of, not teaching us to build bridges and is instead teaching us to ignite this war of words further, which is fast becoming a war of weapons, then what of value is it teaching us?
    we need to take a step back and review ourselves and try to correct our own mistakes, which there are plenty of, because what we have do so far hasnt put us in a better place. we should be the ones moving forward, admitting our mistakes, correcting ourselves first and then advising other people.
    And now I’ll probably get labelled a mullah and my comment written off as nonsense. I’m not on of ‘them’. All I’m trying to say is that we are not getting through to ANYONE with this constant bashing, it is not getting us anywhere. So how about we review this strategy and start by knowing what we know best, which is our ownselves. Let’s start by our ownselves and figure out where WE went wrong. Or maybe we didn’t coz we are liberal and therefore we are perfect … ?
    there was a really interesting article in the newsline (may 2009 issue i think) titled ‘A response to a progressive Pakistani’. worth a read. i have it in my email if you cant find it.

  19. PMA

    H (October 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm):

    I agree with you.

  20. yasserlatifhamdani

    H (and PMA who agrees with him),

    Can you tell me how many suicide bombings have the Liberals undertaken? How many Mullahs Pakistani liberals have killed for disagreeing with them? How many Mullahs have been persecuted by Pakistani liberals? How many times have Pakistani liberals blackened faces of Mullahs on billboards? How many Mullahs have liberals killed for practising their religion? How many mosques have the liberals attacked? How many liberals have attacked cars and destroyed property outside religious institutions ?

    If your answer is zero to all of them (which will be the right answer) what you have written is indeed nonsense… You are indeed one of them.

    Liberals believe in freedom of religion, conscience, for all. Liberals don’t stand in the way of people who want to practise their faith. Indeed – as is obvious from my comments to Sun/son above- the Liberal is always ready to compromise for the greater good and for harmony. A liberal doesn’t have a problem with how Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui or the Jamaat-e-Islami want to live their lives! Kashif is welcome to live his life as he pleases But he wants to impose his idea of religion on everyone else. And when one ignores him, he goes on a campaign of villification against me and my family … just because I hold views contrary to his.

    Disagreeing or arguing is not extremism… carrying out violence and making up nonsense about people you disagree with is extremism (look at Kashifiat’s video above- do you think I’ll make a video and lie about Kashif and his family? ).

    I get along (and live and let live) with many practising Muslims with long flowing beards from all sects of Islam. I don’t consider them Mullahs. One of my closest associates and best of friends is a young man who is a staunch Ahle-Hadith Muslim with a long beard. Yet he and I get along famously. Why? Because he is ready to live his life according to his lights… and not impose his views on me. This – my friend- is true liberalism. To me the conservative practising Muslim that he is, my friend is the amongst the most liberal human beings I have come across in my life anywhere in the world. Islam is not against Liberalism. Islam was actually the bastion of liberalism in an age when Kashif Hafeez Siddiquis of the time were still busy persecuting people on the basis race, gender and tribe. .

    So perhaps people like you should stop projecting and claiming nonsense and find the moral courage to condemn what is wrong openly and without fear.

  21. Bloody Civilian

    can we please arrest and prosecute those who are clearly and materially aiding and abetting the enemy? can we start with dr munawar hassan? the latest piece of evidence against him would be his statement on sama tv that suicide attacks are halal in pakistan.

  22. Rashid

    October 29, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    I watched your youtube video on In your video you objected YLH/ his wife for considering Ahmadis as Muslims (Muslim—Ahmadi) and you also mentioned Ahmadis are declared non-Muslim (Kafir) by constitution of Pakistan. If you are so convinced in what you believe and write then my question to you:
    In the thread ‘The Dishonest Crooks of Our Urdu Press’, instead of defending 2nd Constitutional Amendment in 1973 Constitution of Pakistan that declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim and based on that propaganda your claim “Whole Islamic Ummah” declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims, YOU RAN AWAY WITH YOUR TAIL TUCKED IN YOUR REAR LEGS. Why you did NOT take a stand to defend your STUPID 2nd amendment????
    You proved your self to be PUSSY CAT, WHO ACTS LIKE A TIGER, in company of likes of him!!! Shame on you!!!

  23. PMA

    My Dear Yasser Latif,

    The issue is not liberalism or conservatism. The issue is extremism and lack of tolerance–religious or otherwise . Both camps, just like you and your friend do in your personal lives, need to shun extremism and violence, may that be physical or verbal. Intolerant non-mullahs are just as bad as the intolerant mullahs of all sects. And by the way, in their overall set of believes no one is totally ‘liberal’ or totally ‘conservative’. A person could be liberal on one subject and conservative on another. And one last thing. What passes as ‘liberal’ in Pakistan could very well be seen as ‘conservative’ in other parts of the world. So I would not throw around these terms so loosely.

  24. yasserlatifhamdani

    Which one of questions did you answer yes. You are right that the divide is not liberal or conservative but simply tolerance and intolerance.

    But that is precisely what I have pointed out above. I only oppose intolerance..and there is no moral equivalence between what I say and what Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui says about people who just want to live their lives.

    So I hope people here will be more honest than H above.

  25. Majumdar

    Can you tell me how many suicide bombings have the Liberals undertaken etc?……

    That of course depends on how you define liberal. If you define ZAB as a liberal, quite a lot actually.


  26. H


    you seem to have pounced onto my message like it was some sort of attack on liberals. relax. i didnt mean it like that. im on your side.

    i dont know who this kashif guy is that you keep referring to. i FULLY condemn all sorts of violence and vandalism. i didnt realise i had to make that clear before i posted my comment.

    the answer to all of the questions that you raised is quite obviously zero. i never argued that it was anything but that.

    for your peace of mind, i do associate myself with the ‘liberals ‘much more than i do with the ‘mullahs’. if you read my post again, and perhaps with just a little bit of patience, you may see that i was merely questioning our strategy, the strategy of the liberals with dealing with the so-called mullahs. all im trying to say is that maybe, just maybe we need to take a step back review how to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. maybe we can do something more than just bashing them on our blogs while they bash us in our sermons. and by doing this, no one is saying that we accept the violence or condone it anyway. no, that’s not the point, but maybe we can come with something more cohesive than just belittling the other side as it clearly isnt working.

    but if we decide that no we are indeed perfect, then fine. let’s just keep doing this till the end. us on our blogs, them on theirs, till the end.

    it’s for us to decide who takes the higher road. being the liberal ones, i say we do it.

    p.s. i like what you write. i agree with most of it. please dont make this personal. im just thinking out loud about what we can do to get ourselves out of this predicament.

  27. H

    just to make it really clear… I’M NOT CONDONING VIOLENCE OF ANY SORT. (can we get bigger font on these things).

    I’m merely suggesting that perhaps we should reach out to these people because most of what we say does make sense but the way we say can be a little demeaning sometimes to say the least. Doesn’t matter how horrible they are towards us. We won’t do the same. Not just in our actions but also in our words. We won’t stoop down to that level and then maybe we just might get through to one or two of them to make them realise that there is a deep message in what we are saying. A messgae of peace, justice and honesty. At the moment, because of our aggressive language we are gettig through to no one. It’s human psychology.

  28. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear H,

    No offence intended…

    However in my view, we won’t be able to dig ourselves out of this hole so long as you draw a moral equivalence between two groups, one of which believes in freedom of religion, equality of citizenship and freedom of conscience and the other which believes in negation of freedom, negation of equality and religious absolutism.

    If your answer is NO to the questions I asked then perhaps you retract some of the more salient points of your earlier communication which you have now toned down.

    Religious freedom and freedom of conscience is a must. Pakistan must ensure for all its citizens… for the Kashif Hafeez Siddiquis as well as Rashid, Jay or Lutf…. or BC and Raza Rumi and myself. This should be a fundamental basis of compromise. Unfortunately if you were to view the video posted by Kashifiat you’ll see that those on the other side are not the sort that negotiate on table like gentlemen … but rather cut off the heads of those that they disagree with.

    So kindly realize that what you wrote earlier – whatever your intentions- is clearly open for misconstruction…. I am not making it personal.

    Nobody said we are perfect… but we always have people on this side who start their own fights and arguments with each other in the middle. If I say Islam is a rational religion …. a 1001 liberals will jump down my throat leaving the clear and present danger aside…. if I call a spade a spade, you’ll jump in the fray quoting some inane article from newsline.

    You see the dilemma of liberals? Because we rightly have self doubt and because we believe in Justice and Fair play … we question ourselves on even those issues where we must take a united stand … it borders on Pure “O” OCD.

    Liberalism is a habit of the heart… it is about tolerance, fair compromise, freedom of speech and expression and an intolerance for all kinds of intolerance. It doesn’t matter if you believe in Islam or not… it doesn’t matter if you have a beard or not… it doesn’t matter if you pray five times a day or don’t pray at all… you are a liberal if you follow these principles… these principles which found expression in Islam during the hey day of Islamic civilization… when an atheist blasphemer like Al-Razi could still be honored as the great Muslim medicine man….

    People like Kashif and the Mullahs are ignorant of Islam’s glorious traditions and rich history… I can only laugh when they abuse Pakistanis and Muslims for their personal choices in sexuality etc today…. Nothing the Muslims of today do compares to the goings on at the courts of the greatest Muslim Kings and Sultans… at the height of Islamic civilization…

    Had the Mullahs gotten a chance to see the court of Sultan Mehmet Fateh- the conqueror of Constantinople (which according to established hadith makes him worthy of paradise)- they would consider Pakistanis and Muslims of today to be prudes in comparison and extremely boring.

    The documented accounts of the stories of orgies etc of the viziers of a pious and religious Sultan like Salahuddin Ayubi should also open their eyes…. One of the greatest Caliphs in the Muslim History… Haroon Al Rashid … created a court that rivalled that of ancient Rome in its hedonism… especially the abundance of women and wine. His son Mamun established the creed of Mutazillah i.e. Rationality as state religion.

    I am not saying that this is good or bad … but what I am trying to say is that the focus of Islam is individual reform and therefore reform of society… doctrinally it has never tried to impose any one belief on anyone. Even where it has attempted to dominate, it has always sought to leave space for alternative discourse. These are my views as someone who is looking at it as a student of Islamic History.

    And whereever … some narrow interpretation of Sharia has been imposed by force, the result has been disastrous all through out human history. The Ummayads fell soon after Ummayad Caliph Umar Bin Abdul Aziz imposed his version of Islam on the Arabs…. Muslim decline in Spain towards the very end had much to do with the reversal of traditional tolerance that marked Muslim rule in Spain… the Mughals fell only after the mighty Aurangzeb tried to impose a very rigid interpretation of Sunni Islam on Muslims and Hindus alike…. even Tipu Sultan’s decline had to do quite a bit with his decision to make a break with some of the more pragmatic and secular practices of his illustrious father Haider Ali…. Ottoman Empire was weakened by the religiously intolerant policies of Sultan Abdul Hamit which paved the way for the Young Turks and finally Kemal Ataturk.

    And now we – in Pakistan the successor state of Mughal Empire- facing a similar situation as a result of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s and General Zia’s Aurangzeb like mistakes vis a vis religion.

  29. DCMediagirl

    The idea that one can negotiate or dialogue rationally with irrational people is in itself irrational in the extreme. If invectives are hurled at fundamentalists, let’s just say I for one would not lose any sleep. I ask myself to apply the “what if the shoe was on the other foot?” standard. For example: I see a woman in hijab. I don’t run up to her, rip the hijab off, smear makeup on her face and tear her garment until she’s showing cleavage and leg. So would I be granted the same live-and-let-live courtesy if I chose to walk with my head uncovered among the true believers? How would I be treated by the mullahs? By the men of the group? I have made a conscious decision not to cover my head (I’m not a Muslim, but I belong to a faith whose religious women do). I made the decision based on my worldview. I doubt that if I tried to have a rational discussion with a mullah regarding my thought process that I’d be addressing an open-minded or sympathetic listener.

  30. H

    I really hope you’ve read the article I was referring to. Calling it inane without having read it, would be inane. But if you have read it, I respect your opinion. 

    As for my earlier communication, I do retract any comments that may have come off as defence for extremists. I did NOT intend that. It was more a self critique than anything, clearly came across the wrong way and sorry about that. Self critique because I find that we spend too much time constantly hammering them.   

    So now that i hope we have established that I’m not defending the other side, what can WE do to help this situation. This is the question that I’m putting across. I’m not saying what they can do or what they should do as there is little point in discussing that considering they aren’t going to listen to us anyway. It’s a fruitless discussion. 

    BUT maybe they’re not listening to us coz of our tone? Worth a thought? No? Ok. Move on. 

    I have no clue why you’re taking such an aggressive stance against me. Really. Is it because I’ve been labelled as one of them. When did I sympathise with them? Ok so I didn’t ridicule them instead I thought let’s look at ourselves, but I did not for one second condone anything they do. I didn’t ridicule their disgusting actions because we have done that. We’ve been doing it for decades! What has it achieves? Are they gonna read this and go ‘oh you know what? This guy makes so much sense’. Unlikely considering our tone towards them. Are we reaching out to them by doing this? Who are these discussions aimed at? To ourselves? What’s the point in that? We already agree that what they do is sickening and wrong. Do we think they are beyond reach and then we can write them off as a people? In which why are we even wasting our time talking about them. 


    P.S. I see that posts on this forum need to be full of disclaimers otherwise people are gonna lay into you. 🙂 

  31. H

    oh and I’m not drawing any MORAL equivalence between the two. That would be nonsense.

    I was merely asking if we have been better them then in how we approached this debate. Again I’m not talking about the violence and the vandalism, I’m just talking about the debate aspect.

    I’m suggesting we should be better than them. We are already but we need to improve if we wanna win. Again please don’t come out guns blazing, I’m saying that we haven’t been doing this already. I’m saying let’s do more. Let’s take the higher road. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO? No? Ok then let’s stop talking about them!!!

  32. H


    Again please don’t come out guns blazing, I’m *NOT* saying that we haven’t been doing this already. I’m saying let’s do more. Let’s take the higher road. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO? No? Ok then let’s stop talking about them!!!

  33. H

    And I completely agree with your understanding on Islamic history.

  34. Wajid

    Dude, after so many posts in which you keep repeating that you don’t defend the fanatics’ tactics and that you’re a liberal, I get it — you’re a liberal. But why so defensive?
    The debate wasn’t about you being liberal or conservative, it was about exposing the filth that Mullah’s have been injecting in our society, when we were just letting it go.

    And it’s insane to think you can “reason with” or “reach out to” fanatics. How would that approach have gone over with the armed hijabi women at the Red Mosque, and their goonish male companions waving AK47s? How would you explain to them that kidnapping Chinese workers minding their own business in Islamabad is immoral and wrong?

    If your neighbor’s son was attending the mosque and was sexually molested by a mullah, would you “reason” with the kid?

    Most of these mullahs have no formal education. Their religious “training” involves mindless repetition and memorization. Their success as mullahs is defined by how strong and loyal a gang they can form. We can sit here and debate all day about “how to reach out to them” like we have been doing for the past many man years. It’s time to yell back at them and call them what they really are.

    Being a liberal shouldn’t mean being a fool. I would venture to guess that most of the opinions being expressed here about the mullahs were formed by simple observation. And one thing you can’t miss is that fanatics don’t understand talk and compromise.

    So far, this is the best way, which is to create awareness and expose their sickness.

  35. @ YLH
    These fanatics are a bunch of confused peoples…
    They Have their history and ideology filled with such moments where they have compromised what they have insisted for…..
    In Pakistan they have opposed Women’s rule and as Maudoodi in his book has stated while refering to the famous hadith relating to female political leadership is Sahih al-Bukhari 5:59:709, in which The Prophet(PBUH) is recorded as saying that people with a female ruler will never be successful.
    But in Bangladesh JI chief was Minister under KZ premiership and they have supported even in Pakistan Madre Millat(RA).
    They declare the jeans or skirt wearing young girls as Liberal and etc etc…
    But A columnist from the same Newspaper has quoted Qazi Sb(Go to America Go Family head)
    as when he was on a visit to Turkey and was fascinated with the sincerity and zeal of women workers(jeans and skirt wearing) of a brother islamic party( whom they relate to theirselves very proudly….

  36. Interetingly these peoples hanging in between
    Mr. & Mullahs claaimed to be pious than the pope…
    Their history is filled with a lot of examples of (in Urdu we termed it as) Ibn Ul Waqti……..
    On some issues their stance is more strict even than the Mullahs……
    As the issue of Women’s rule in Islam Maudoodi has opposed it strongly while refering to the famous Hadith relating to female political leadership is Sahih al-Bukhari 5:59:709, in which The Prophet(PBUH) is recorded as saying that people with a female ruler will never be successful.
    But they supported Madre Millat under political Compulsion(Iztiraari Haalaat) and opposed Shaheed Bibi Sahiba on the basis of Hadith or rightly speaking their own interpretation of Hadith.But they again supported KZ rule and even accepted ministry in Bangladesh….Hahaha again Iztirari Halaat
    A religious scholar with no political motives Late Ashraf ‘Alī Thānwī (August 19, 1863 – July 4, 1943) has interpreted this Hadith differently…As he clearified In Parliamentary democracies powers are with the house and Premier is only a symbol…so he said the hadith does not apply to it….its for absolut rule of Woman….(Imdadul Fatawa Vol5 P91)

  37. Music is Haraam according to Maudoodi(Rasail o Masail)
    But Qazi sb introduced the Bhangra and Dhol in political compaigns and portrayed himself as Bhangra KIng or much similar to the Character of Late Sultan Rahi…
    Zaalimo!!! Qazi araha Hai…Qazi Da Chopal or Qazi Da Khadaak etc…..
    Munawwar Hasan, the new Madari with some new game shows in his Pitaari has come Now….

  38. Mustafa Shaban

    @ H: I completely agree with you especially your first post. You hit the nail on the head. You cant win by just bashing people around and using big engliish words. In the end you have to come down to rational dialogue and simple reasoning to win the argument. But I have noticd that you have gone on the defensive a little too much. A man with the right idea shouldn’t be doing that. Also YLH is way too aggressive with his perspective and point of view, in reality if you see his posts, he doesnt tolerate anything that he disagrees with. If he is being aggressive and dismissive then just say it. Becuase he is. No offence meant though.

    @ YLH: you are rite when you say that we must tolerate everyone and not impose our point of view on others. But in this blog you have not tolerated different points of view and you yourself have been very dismissive at time of different points of view. Tolerance also means listening to other people and trying to understand where they come from without calling them names. It definitely isnt the same as killing someone who disagrees with you but it is still bad. You also have an interesting view on Islamic history, where did you get it from? So that I can also read the material.

    @DC media girl: Not all Mullahs are bad and intolerant. Some Islamic scholars, are very tolerant and understanding. Not all muslims or mullahs would mind if you have your head uncovered, only some people would. Also you first would have to find out who is irrational and intolerant and who is not without making pre judgements based on stereotypes. You also need to understand that you as an individual need to have a high standard of eithics and morals, s you should not have the ”eye for an eye” ideology. Just because some people are intolerant of you does not mean you should be intolerant of them. Some scholars are symathetic and rational, and they are not so hard to find, infact I am happy to say that they are in the majority.

  39. Bloody Civilian

    Mustafa Shaban

    there is a difference between not agreeing and not tolerating. dismissing or even condemning a pov is not remotely the same as censoring it.

    i shouldn’t need to mention that the attempted or inadvertant impression of moral equivalence between physical violence or threat thereof and anything else has already been condemned here, by all shades of reasonable opinion – whether ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. i hope you’re not returning to the same condemnable confusion.

    are you objecting to people not agreeing with those they find themselves disagreeing with? is that what we need to do? is that what you are saying?

  40. Bloody Civilian

    Just because some people are intolerant of you does not mean you should be intolerant of them

    you haven’t made it clear… as long as you’re not suggesting that intolerance ought to be tolerated… you can clarify what you mean. it’s not easy to have too much tolerance… but tolerating intolerance is where i draw the line.

  41. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: I am not saying not to disagree, everyone can disagree, but they should do it without calling the other names, or just simply bashing them or simply dismissing thier view by saying its too extreme or by associating them with a group/steroetype or something.

    We should not tolerate intolerance nd should condemn it. But that dusnt mean we do not listen to those who have similar views to those who are intolerant.

  42. Junaid

    I am with YLH

    And no the masses in Pakistan are not with the taliban or the Mullahs… the masses of Pakistan however theo-centrically Muslim… which means that they have a deep cultural and spiritual affiliation with Islam which is an unbreakable bond. Any attempt at reform and modernity that fails to realize this will automatically be rejected by them… therefore Islam does have a place in Pakistani society … though not in the constitution or the state …and definitely not as state religion… but rather as the lifeblood of its adherents who are in a majority in this country.

    You cannot impose secularism on a society which is superstitious and religious in nature.

  43. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mustafa Shaban,

    If you agree with what H wrote in the first post, then please feel free to answer my questions I asked above…

    You say I am dismissive and aggressive… I learnt to call a spade a spade from my spiritual, political and legal Guru, Pir and Mentor… one Mahomed Ali Jinnah …. but that doesn’t mean I am intolerant. I absolutely allow you post all kinds of nonsense… isn’t this tolerance ?

    Stop this hogwash. Learn to be straight. Expressing one’s point of view fearlessly is NOT intolerance… what Kashifiat has posted and put up in that video above is intolerance. Make the distinction. Grow up and serve Pakistan.

  44. Mustafa Shaban

    YLH: Your problem exactly, you are not censoring anyone…but look at your language ”nonsense” ”hogwash”. The fact that you get so annoyed and angry in an intellectual discussion is not the same as fearlessly defending what you believe in. Neither is this the behaviour of intellectuals in a liberal democratic forum. You are allowing us to post our point of view, but you are intolerant, you could say ”I disagree with you, my point of view is such and such” this should be the kind of language, but what you do is this ”I disagree with your nonsense, you are a bigot, extremist” This is the problem. You are annoyed and irritated by different points of view, the poitn is, you do not only have to tolerate anothers point of view but to respect it as well which is where some people on this forum are lacking. Nobody is asking you to agree with thier point of view, but you have to respect what people say.

  45. Rashid

    Dear Moderators:
    How some one can submit article for publication on this blog?
    I would like to submit ‘Letter to Pakistan TV Channel —
    Grave inaccuracies in programme about the Woking Mosque
    by Zahid Aziz’ published in November 2009 issue of ‘The Light—UK Edition’ by Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.
    A Program was presented on Shahjehan Mosque, Woking, UK with grave distortion of facts, on 1st September 2009 on PTV Global Channel.
    I want to bring to knowledge of readers that DISHONESTY and LIES in matter of religion and society are not only limited to people like Kashif Hafeez Saddiqui.
    This letter is an article in itself.
    Moderators or YLH or anyone else can submit/ post/ publish the said article.
    It can be accessed on: www dot ahmadiyya dot org
    On home page in top middle section click on: The Light UK Edition, November 2009
    Scroll down to page 4.

  46. Bloody Civilian


    interesting info. thanks. esp interesting to note the impression that m. thanvi has no problem with absolute (ie arbitrary) rule… as long as it is not by a woman. is this impression right or wrong? and if m. thanvi considers absolute rule to be wrong… then why bother with whether the wrongdoer is man or woman? and if he finds nothing wrong with absolute rule, then is it worth bothering with what he says or does not say about anything to do with the subject of government and statecraft?

  47. Bloody Civilian

    Mustafa Shaban

    how do you suggest one should describe nonsense and hogwash in an intellectual debate, if not as ”nonsense” and ”hogwash”?

  48. DCMediagirl

    @Mustapha Shaban:

    I was clearly referring to fundamentalist and intolerant elements, not all mullahs. And to respond to your other “eye for an eye” point, it is unrealistic to suggest that being tolerant of those who are intolerant is a reasonable course to take. I cannot think of any examples of appeasing radicals and fanatics has yielded positive results.

  49. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: There are ways to convey your opinion and your disagreement differently.

    @DCmedia girl: Yeah I agree with you. Those who are totally intolerant should be ignored.

  50. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mian shaban

    As BC pointed out above… one cannot call nonsense and hogwash by any other name.

    Damn straight I am annoyed and irritated by people who continue to condone absolute bigotry…

    Now … I am still waiting for the answers to my questions which you are trying to ignore… let me repeat them:

    Can you tell me how many suicide bombings have the Liberals undertaken?

    How many Mullahs Pakistani liberals have killed for disagreeing with them?

    How many Mullahs have been persecuted by Pakistani liberals?

    How many times have Pakistani liberals blackened faces of Mullahs on billboards?

    How many Mullahs have liberals killed for practising their religion?

    How many mosques have the liberals attacked?

    How many liberals have attacked cars and destroyed property outside religious institutions ?

    … There is no moral equivalence… one side wants everyone including but not limited to even idiots and morons like Kashifiat and Jamaat-e-Islami to have full freedom to live according to their desires…

    The other sides wants to impose its narrow interpretation of Islam on everyone …. and kill anyone who disagrees…

    Choose.. or shut up.

  51. @BC
    “Is it worth bothering with what he says or does not say about anything to do with the subject of government and statecraft?”
    I have quoted M.Thanvi with the following lines before
    “Interestingly these peoples(JI) hanging in between
    Mr. & Mullahs claaimed to be pious than the pope…”
    These Ulemas have a very dubious role on such issues…atleast he thought better than JI mufakkir e islam
    I am not a fan of M.Thanvi for his attitude towards the british Govt. as he was a critic of freedom struggle and participation of his fellow Ulemas in this regard…
    When Moulana Mehoodulhasan came back from Malta…he criticized him for his activities against british empire….
    He was follower of M. Ahmad Ludhianvi who has opposed participation in war of 1857….

  52. Mustafa Shaban

    @ YLH: Iam not ignoring anything, also i think your questions are answered by somebody else. Liberals are more well behaved than the extremist Islamic fundamentalist and there is no moral equivalence. This is true, but I am not talking about them, I am talking about people like me and others who you just cant respect. It is as if you hate our point of view even though we are not imposing it on anyone. I am just like your firend who is a strict muslim, I have my own opinion and am not imposing it on anyone, at the same time i am oopen to debate and discussion. Also you put it too simplisticly, them and us, with us or against us, liberals or conservatives. Its not that simple at all. The spectrum is pretty huge and there are people that have 100 different viewpoints. There are conservatives, who love freedom and dont have a problem with anyone doing anyhting different. They just discuss and debate. You are throwing lables around carelessly. There are a lot more sides than 2 sides. I totally disagree with mullahs who want to impose thier version of life on anyone and also the liberals who want to impose thier life on everyone. I only accept those people who tolerate the other. Be they of any opinion. Also I will go further and say that you should respect the other. Also I consider you as a liberal who is almost an extremist, you dunt impose your views on anyone but you are extremely rude to those who differ in opinion.

    Please cal me by my first name. Also I choose my unique perspective and point of view, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, I have different view of things and I am not impsoing it on anyone but I like to give my opinion of things when I can. The only difference between you and other intolerant people is that some people kill others for being different, and others like you only verbally attack those who are different. The difference is the severity and level of intolerance and disrespect. Sorry to point it out bro but thats what you are doing. Otherwise I have not imposed anything on anyone and all I have done is stated my opinion and discusssed my point of view and debated a little which takes place everywhere but yo seem to have issues with that. Also what makes a blog liberal and democratic is not that it dusnt censor other posts but the people in charge have respect for different perspectives and opinions.

    Also watch your language, shut up has no room in an important discussion, you dont have to lose your cool over a small debate. Its just a blog and everyone is just here to talk so just chill. I have not told you to shut up or offended you and I expect others to treat me just the same.

  53. yasserlatifhamdani


    No one answered my questions… why don’t you go ahead and try?

    Unless you can show me how I have stopped you from expressing your point of view… or how I have imposed my will on others… or stopped anyone from doing as they please…. your accusations against me are simply dishonesty.

    You prove yourself to be a dishonest crook of the highest order when you say the following:

    The only difference between you and other intolerant people is that some people kill others for being different, and others like you only verbally attack those who are different.

    If you think this is a small or a minor difference … then you need to get your head examined! But it is not like I verbally attack people for being conservative, or Islamic, or Hindu, or Indian… I verbally attack only those who kill others for being different. See the difference?

    Then you say:

    “the people in charge have respect for different perspectives and opinions”

    Well we don’t have any respect for intolerance or for that matter tolerance for intolerance. What kind of perspective condones terrorism? What kind of perspective condones bigotry, slander and libel?

    You are the one making it simplistic by calling me an extremist for saying that terrorists are wrong, that everyone should have freedom of religion, that everyone should be allowed to live as they please… and that whoever opposes these ideas should not be tolerated!

  54. yasserlatifhamdani

    PS: Tolerance should not be confused with “acceptance” or “respect”.

    Tolerance is sufferance and no one suffers fools gladly…

  55. Bloody Civilian

    @Mustafa Shaban

    are you trying to make a case for freedom of expression or the virtues of a wishy-washy sitting on the fence? how is ‘put up or shut up’ equivalent to just ‘shut up’? the latter does not belong in an intellectual debate only a little more than trying to hide behind the emotional equivalent of the ‘egg-shell skull’ excuse.

  56. Bloody Civilian

    …. the arguer being a charmer or not might have it’s advantages and disadvantages even in an intellectual debate, but it is due to human traits quite irrelevant to what makes a debate intellectual or not. it has as little to do with the intellectual merit of an argument defending or attacking a position as an intellectual debate has to do with what positions are actually taken.

  57. Bloody Civilian

    There are ways to convey your opinion and your disagreement differently.

    i’m afraid the only other way of describing nonsense and hogwash would be to come up with nonsense and hogwash of your own. how else can you attempt to disagree with the content of nonsene and hogwash or even looking for content where there is none?

  58. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH: I dont need to answer your questions, it is obvois that liberals do not physically harm mulahs or extremists whereas the extremists do kill other people. This is the answer to al your questions. I am not goiing to answer each question individually when the answer is obvious and simple, i understood the point you were making.

    I did not say that you stopped me from making my point of view or imposed it on anyone, what I am saying is that you seem to have a problem with anybody who differs from your point of view, I said you were alomst an extremist but not an extremist, please go bak to my previous post and read more carefully.

    I do not think there is a small difference, there is a big difference but even verbally attacking those who differ from you all the time is not such a good thing.

    You do verbally attack those who kill others which is a good thing, but people like me on this forum only state thier opinion and discuss and none of us have killed anyone or imposed our view on anyone, so why alwayz attack us????

    It is good that you do not tolerate intolerance, i agree with that. But do I seem intolerant? do i not listen and respond to what yu and others say? Am I not discussing issues with everyone on this forum?

    Your view point is rite, but what makes you seem like an extremist is that you are alwayz attacking thos e who differ even a little bit from you and you do not seem to be trying to understand the other, alwayz angry and irritated at the other point of view which is not your own even if its not so different. This is similar to what extremists do, they do not like to hear anyone s else point f view, some extremists will listen and respond, but thier response wil be rude and/or dismissive, and they will not accept those who have even a slight difference in pov.

    @Bloody Civilian: Can you tell me exactly what I have said amounts to nonsense? I may have a different point of view but it certainly does not equate to nonsense.

    Also why do you guyz take these things so personally?

    @YLH: nobody s attacking you, you just seem to percieve things that way, and why do discussions need to get al personal?? Even if you are right, if you lose your temper you lose the argument. Its a wise saying. I suggest you go along with it. You called me crook and told me to shut up but I have not responded in like, it is alwayz best to do the same.

  59. Bloody Civilian

    @Mustafa Shaban

    Can you tell me exactly what I have said amounts to nonsense?

    can you tell me where i have said anything of the sort about you?

    Also why do you guyz take these things so personally?

    again, where have i said anything of the sort?

    or is daring to disagree with you tantamount to a personal attack? you’ll find that even if you did get personal and/or haughty, hypothetically speaking, as long as there was an argument there, i’d focus on your argument and ignore the rest… unless there was bad language of the kind that would deserved censoring anyway.

  60. Mustafa Shaban

    Bloody Civilian: You are rite, you didnt mention that I was talking nonsense, and you did not take it personally….i apologize for that, got kind of carried away, I am actualy posing those questions to YLH. Ofcourse as you know I obviously have no issues with people disagreeing with me. My comments were mainly toward YLH. Also I hope he takes things lightly and positively rather than negatively.

  61. Bloody Civilian

    Mustafa: I apologise for butting in to a conversation between you and YLH. a couple of things you said caught my attention but the intention was not to make you feel like you’re being hassled.

  62. Mustafa Shaban

    No problem bro, its ok, if you have anything in mind you should say it. Dont worry I do not feel hassled.

  63. Bloody Civilian

    good to know that. in that case, is your lack of response to what i had to say a result of the fact that you agree with it all?

    to take up just two of the points made by you, once again, most recently:

    i asked: how is ‘put up or shut up’ equivalent to just ’shut up’? if you agree that they are very different things, then your complain against YLH would be surprising.. to say the least.

    you have now clarified that you consider the difference between violent exteremists and vehement liberals to be big, not small. so how can you then still complain about YLH criticising you for giving the wrong impression the first time round?

  64. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: They are different, thing is that the point i am trying to make is that he is being unnecessarily snappy. He misunderstood what I was saying, he thinks I am in favor of intolerant mullahs when I am not.

    I never said YLH was an extremist, I said that he is kind of goes to the extreme as a liberal when he reacts negatively to everything that is different from his pov.

  65. gv


    could you provide a link to the newsline article you mentioned please.

  66. gv

    @H & Mustafa Shaban

    Agree with you guys wholeheartedly. There is no point in sitting here preaching to the choir. We (the anti-extremists), whether liberal or of any other form, need to seriously examine our approach and apparent high handedness when addressing the extremist issue.


    you do no favours to your own cause with your arrogance and superiority towards the constructive criticism being offered by H & MS in good faith. Notice that neither of them have resorted to rudeness and aggression when responding to your posts.

  67. yasserlatifhamdani

    My dear Mr. V,

    Nice to see you here. Hope you’ll be a regular.

    Look I have already made my points on why both H and MS are wrong and hence won’t repeat them.

    If you agree with H or MS, I do ask you to take a shot at the questions I have asked above, which MS atleast has skirted around as usual. As for H, I think he realized what he was saying was subject to the construction I attached to it.

    On another note: Contact the Beej. Ask him about what we were upto at Rutgers… ask him about the Siqafat scandal and the battle with the brothers… you’ll see that much of what I say is usually grounded in fact.

    This is all I have to say at the moment.


    Dear Shaban,

    I find it ironic and sad that people like you who support crooks like Zaid Hamid can speak of tolerance and manage to fool people like Mr. V.

    I called you crook for trying to equate (a position you mercifuly retreated from) liberals with Mullahs. That is all.

    No one is losing one’s temper. Like I said tolerance is sufferance and no one suffers fools gladly. I don’t have a cause – to burst a few bubbles-…. I am just here to set a few things right and open a few minds.

  68. gv


    drat you’ve blown my brilliant disguise 🙂

    ok on a serious note you are missing the point here…your questions are irrelevant..

    Go over the comments once again.. Excluding the psuedo-religious nutjobs, you are the only one responding to others in a belligerent fashion.. that is all the others are saying.. you can’t expect to make any headway and win the support of the fence sitters if you follow an Us Vs. Them approach..

  69. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH: I have answered your questions, liberals have not done any physical damage to extremists in any shape or form whereas the extremists have done all kinds of damages to moderates, physical harm in all kinds of shapes and forms.

    Leave Zaid Hamid out of this, it is only my opinion. Also I am truly tolerate and I am not here to fool anyone.

    Also I have never equated liberals with mullahs,I have never equated liberals with extremists, but I have equated hardcore liberals who verbally try to impose thier version of things on others to extreme conservatives who verbally try to impose thier views on others.

    also gv is rite, the us vs them approach is bad, George Bush tried it and it didnt work 2 well. Its a failed strategy used by many in history and in the present such as the Neocons but it dusnt work.

    you try to portray me as some sly, forked tongue man who loves to play with words and rhetoric and get people on my side, which is a totally wrong impression, I am nothing of the sort. And I believe that everybody else on this forum can vouch for that.

  70. YLH

    Dear Mr. V,

    I am afraid it is you who is missing the point.

    There is no us and them here. As I pointed out earlier there are some who want to kill others for believing differently and there are those who want others to live as they please.

    H and shaban are apologists for the former. I have no respect for either of them. If you think that is belligerent so be it. But from my standpoint this is not an issue of conflicting world views and identities or belief but about whether every human being has the right to practise his or her faith or lack thereof or not? And if they do then one cannot be respectful towards those who want to kill others over doctrinal and conceptual differences. Indeed this tolerance for intolerance is shameful.

    As for being belligerent I don’t see your point nor I am sure do
    Dan, BC, wajid or countless others. So thankyou for your advice but Ill follow my own judgment in the matter


    Before you pick up these concepts realize that I am not making it us versus them… I am simply condemning those who kill people for disagreeing and those who apologize for them. Since every group has its crooks cranks and madmen, it cannot logically be us versus them.

    Before making the Bush analogy make a comparison between Zaid hamid and the right wing nutcases of the US and India…they are the ones who make it us versus them.

    So if you actually believe all that you said about liberals then you shouldn’t speak with a forked tongue dear boy.

  71. gv


    as you wish – its your blog as it is..

  72. kashifiat

    My posted link is Blocked 🙂

  73. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH: hahaha how many times have I pointed out that I am not defending the former (mulahs and extremists). I agree with your stance that we should not tolerate those who are intolerant. So what is the difference in our points of view?? But lets take an example….me and H….are we intolerant???? If we are then you can criticize us for our intolerance like you have been doing for so long…..but if we are not which is the case then I do not know why you have been blasting us for having our own points of view…..this is my point….you can respond aggressivly to anybody who is intolerant but we are not intolerant so why are you aiming your guns at us?? We do not defend those who are intolerant either…where have we done something like this?….this is the point I have been trying to make ovr and over again but you just dont seem to get it

    You seriously need to re read my post and what I said about liberals……I am not condemning them, they have thier own point of view and have the freedom to practice it, but some poeple who call themselves liberal are actaully not liberal when they are intolerant of other pov’s. They sometimes impose it on others. The real liberals are good and different in nature.

    Also Zaid Hamid has his strong statements against certain groups but he is alwayz accepting of different points of views. he takes questions and criticizm of students and responds in a polite way. Tell me one time where he has told somebody criticizing him politely to shut up or something. Give me just one incident.

  74. Archaeo

    @Mustafa Shaban

    You just don’t get it, do you?

    Putting things softly while preaching the uber-paranoid conspiracy theories of Zaid Hamid counts for nothing.

    YLH putting things harshly, while advocating tolerance for all, subject to intolerance of preaching violence and sectarianism, counts for nothing.

    It’s not the way they say it, it’s what they say.

  75. yasserlatifhamdani


    Your posted link (to the video that you shamelessly put up on youtube) has always been there and has never been blocked.

  76. yasserlatifhamdani

    Mustafa Shaban

    You are an apologist for those who kill others for disagreeing with them.

    I am yet to see a single statement from either you or your precious Mr. H condemning Kashifiat’s video above. Yet you have dedicated countless posts condemning my “aggressive” and “belligerent” stance…

    Yours sincerely,


  77. yasserlatifhamdani

    … Also… would like to see examples of those liberals who according to Mustafa Shaban have tried to impose their views on others ….

    This takes us back to the questions … none of the people here have bothered to answer.

  78. Archaeo

    As Mustafa Shaban and his fellow travellers have a carefully selective memory, it is worthwhile repeating the questions that they are evading, and no doubt will continue to evade, as they have no answers:

    Can you tell me how many suicide bombings have the Liberals undertaken?

    How many Mullahs Pakistani liberals have killed for disagreeing with them?

    How many Mullahs have been persecuted by Pakistani liberals?

    How many times have Pakistani liberals blackened faces of Mullahs on billboards?

    How many Mullahs have liberals killed for practising their religion?

    How many mosques have the liberals attacked?

    How many liberals have attacked cars and destroyed property outside religious institutions ?

    Watch for the huge indignation at being called to account; watch for the double talk and the equivocation; watch for the complete unwillingness to cite hard examples themselves, and the exclusive reliance on airy fairy information ‘freely available on the Internet for those who are willing to look’. Not a single concrete reference, not a single substantiation of a stand-alone opinion, not a clue to what is being discussed, except an exclusive reliance on the lowest common denominator of medicine-salesmen techniques in putting across dubious points of view, and open indulgence in splitting a country currently at war.

    If these are not Quislings and fifth-columnists, what are?

  79. Bloody Civilian


    most recent example only: zaid hamid called ambassador hilali the opposite of patriotic and an american agent on ARY-News’ ‘sawal ye hai’ (or something by that joker dr danish).

    your other hero imran khan did the same in case of hoodbhoy, suggesting he was an american agent too.

    why is it that your heroes are more interested in calling people names instead of trying to refute the opponents’ argument?

    the above two examples are from tv. this here is just a little blog. there is little scope of using violence at either forum. how does one anyone verbally impose one’s pov on another? it is difficult to do much worse with mere words than the two examples from your heroes above. and all they’ve managed to show is that not only have they got no argument, no comeback, but no scruples either.

    why don’t you take it upon yourself to defend your heroes with proper argument. how about starting with imran khan. why not refute the crux of your opponent’s argument rather than wasting time over mannerisms. if you are able to win the argument, you won’t have to worry about anything else then, would you?

  80. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH Archeo: For the millionth time, the answer to all those questions is zero. This is becuase for the millionth time I am telling you that extremist Islamist have harmed everybody else physically whereas nobody persecutes the extremists. Is that good enough an answer??

    YLH: I understand what you are saying, what I mean is that there are a few liberals who convey that only thier opinion is rite and that other are wrong.

    @Bloody Civilian: Zaid Hamid called Haqqani a traitor because he did not argue or push Pakistani interests but American interests. It is not difficult for a superpower to buy out politicians or ambassadors of other countries it dus happen.

    same thing with Hoodhbhoy he only reinforces the US criticizm of Pakistan.
    Though I am not sure if he is an agent.

    Also IK and ZH use reasons and dont just call people other names, they also debate the logic of others actions.

    I have been doing exactly what you are suggesting, not calling names but actually proving my argument to be correct and engagin in debate using logic rather than mere slogans or rhetoric.

    Even if I lose the argument I am not worried about anything. So if you want you can tell me what your objections are with either and we can discuss them.

  81. yasserlatifhamdani

    If you hold that view about liberals how come you agree H’s first post?

    Let us stand by what we say.

  82. Mustafa Shaban

    YHL: No man, what I am saying is that there are a few intolerant liberals, what H is saying that we should have a different approach to those who differ in opinion. Those who do not advocate extremist should not be bashed for thier views. I am standing by what I say. What H is saying and what I am saying are 2 different things that do not contradict each other.

  83. yasserlatifhamdani

    Could you give us the examples of these intolerant Pakistani liberals who kill and maim people and impose their views on others ?

    And where does Zaid Hamid figure on the tolerance and intolerance spectrum.

    And I am still waiting for a condemnation of Kashif’s video above. Apparently those who are supposedly “patient” and those who tip their hats to them are both the kind who are unable to distinguish between real tolerance and patience… and that of the fake variety that passes in the name of tolerance and patience…

  84. yasserlatifhamdani

    Also… since you have become a martyr for the cause … could you tell me why you agreed with H’s view in the first place given that he was advocating tolerance for those who were extremist murderers?

  85. Bloody Civilian


    i said ambassador hilali = h-i-l-a-l-i. not haqqani!

    so if two people are having a debate, you think it is acceptable and honourable for one of them to call the other an american agent and a traitor, to their face, on (inter)national tv, instead of rebutting their argument!

    if you condone that then you cannot say that you yourself don’t do it. the correct and honest statement would be that you haven’t done it yet.

    It is not difficult for a superpower to buy out politicians or ambassadors of other countries it dus happen

    but they usually don’t sign the contracts in broad daylight. or do they? so how can one say that about a specific person? and that too to her/his face… except because one is dishonourable, more interested in using scandal and slander than argument in a debate.

    Also IK and ZH use reasons and dont just call people other names

    the only respectable reason to call someone an ‘enemy’ agent would be that they witnessed the contract signing ceremony. ever heard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? or of slander? defamation? dishonour?
    i couldn’t call even baitullah mehsud an enemy agent.. because i’ve no proof. i can only call him an enemy.

  86. wajid

    Shaban: what a typical middle class, insecure, opportunist attitude you have.
    And if you think, YLH has been intolerant i guess you never been a part of serious and on the table discussions.
    You think calling someone stupid as stupid is being intolerant? Well, then suck it up, thats how it normally goes.

    And for god’s sake make up your mind, which side you are on. you want to be a “liberal” and apologize for people like zaid hamid, imran khan and kashifiat…?!

  87. gv


    Apologies in advance for butting in once again but I can’t help myself…

    Firstly, you keep fixating on the unnecessary detail. Have you considered the possibility that nobody thought the kashif link even worth discussing/condemning due to its total irrelevance to the topic at hand?(not to mention that its just plain daft).

    Secondly, H never advocated ‘tolerance for extremist murderers’, as Mustafa points out, H is saying that we (the anti extremists) need to consider different approaches towards our castigation and condemnation of extremism.

    H’s initial post (quick interpretation) is as follows:

     I am a liberal (e.g. aren’t ‘liberals’, and i would include myself in that category)

     Liberals are taking a wrong approach in their condemnation of the extremists by being antagonistic. E.g.( if this education, that we are such proud owners of, not teaching us to build bridges and is instead teaching us to ignite this war of words further, which is fast becoming a war of weapons, then what of value is it teaching us?)

     Aggressive and antagonistic propagation of liberal values and anti extremist rhetoric is nearly as bad as extremists trying to force their views on the majority (that’s fairly self evident from the post)

     We need to revise our strategy apne ghareban mein jhanko e.g(All I’m trying to say is that we are not getting through to ANYONE with this constant bashing, it is not getting us anywhere. So how about we review this strategy and start by knowing what we know best, which is our ownselves. Let’s start by our ownselves and figure out where WE went wrong. Or maybe we didn’t coz we are liberal and therefore we are perfect? )

    H’s point is that we (the anti extremists) are all in agreement here but if we want to gain support from the general public for our views then we need to do some navel gazing and come up with an effective strategy. Mustafa concurred

    You then went ahead and blasted H and Mustafa without even trying to understand their point which if you don’t mind my saying so – does smack a little bit of intolerance… this is their point – there are many fence sitters out there we need to be able to win them over to the anti extremist camp and that will not happen if you continue to follow an aggressive modus operandi.

  88. Ali Abbas


    You still haven’t answered anything convincingly regarding alleged liberal violence against religious fanatics. These fanatics have been allowed to operate above the law for far two long. For me, the lawyer’s “movement” lost a big chunk of its validity when it tied itself with the land mafia of the Lal Masjid facist brigades. As for Zaid Hamid’s intolerance and takfeer, one needs to see how Fasi Zaka was discussed by the Brasstacks yahoogroup when the former exposed the chinks in ZH’s “economic theories”. I have that on another PC and will post it here tommorow.


    I cannot understand your post. The extremists need to be exposed for the bigotted, sectarian, misogynistic murderers that they are. Unfortunately, our press is siding with them and misguiding the public by providing airtime to charlatans like IK who are further distorting this issue, apologizing for the Taliban and continuously deflecting blame from them. They go even further and make wild accusations against Prof. Hoodbhoy that he is an American agent! Hamid Mir then calls those who want to rally the public opinion against the Taliban and save Pakistan as “liberal facists”! (on Meowed Peerzada’s show on Dunya on Oct. 29th).

    We are truly living in an Orwellian society when hundreds of Pakistanis are being blown to bits by Islamist militias who even take credit for them. However, what does our urban bourgouise, chattering elite and media do? Continue to deflect criticism from these murdering mercenaries, these products of the security establishment. They continue to peddle even wilder conspiracy theories and paint the Taliban and their affiliates as “anti-imperialist” “nationalists” ghazis even as the latter proudly take credit for the slaughter of Pakistani civilians and continue to obliterate Pushtoon and Punjabi culture!

    We cannot get anywhere until we call a spade, a SPADE!

  89. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Mr. V,

    Your advance apology is accepted. I am afraid I don’t see it the way you do.
    I have already explained my interpretation above and I’ll stick to it. So let us do what is the most reasonable and liberal thing to do – agree to disagree- since I have failed to convince you of my point of view.

    As for people like Mustafa Shaban etc, I think they are apologists for people like Kashifiat… especially Shaban mian… who is also enamored with Zaid Hamid and other such crooks, cranks and mad men.

    On atleast one occasion you’ve referred “all the others”. I can assure you that Wajid, Archaeo, BC etc are all to distinct and different individuals who may be counted in “all the others” who may not agree with you.

    F0r others: this is not about education, liberalism, conservatism, secularism, religion etc etc… the issue is much simpler… it is about the freedom to live according to one’s own lights whatever those may be, subject to law and order ofcourse. Nothing more, nothing less.

  90. wajid

    Let me add that I, for one, won’t take this bullshit notion that “no one condemned the video due to its irrelevance”: You shouldn’t stay silent on such unethical moves and should actually come out and condemn it. But that’s only if one is clear about things in his/her mind, because this silent attitude could also mean being in agreement.

    As for fence sitters, don’t worry about them. They have been there and will remain. They are the reason that we are in the situation we’re in today. Don’t speak your mind just because you expect these “sitters” to join you is a bit sneaky.

  91. Mustafa Shaban

    @YLH: Man! I am not saying liberals maim and kill others! Okay let me make this easier to understand

    Intolerance: not tolerating the others point of view, this can have 2 levels, the higher levels is used by terrorist who kill people who dont agree with them. the lesser level is used by different kinds of people who debate with other people but dunt respect or even listen to the other side. This lower level conssits of a few conservatives and few liberals, basically a lot of people do that.

    @Bloody Civilian: It is true that contracts are not done in broad daylight but why else would a person go against his own national interests and sell his own contry to others?? Some of the people in the past who behaved like this later on were proven to be agents of a foreign country. About Baitullah Mehsud the Army Chief and Interior Minister have strong evidence relating to foreign interference in Balochistan and with the TTP. Even the US is disturbed at the Indian prescense in Afghanistan and that they bak terrorist group like Christine Fair from RAND corporation pointed out.

    @Wajid , I can only say your comments are disgusting, personally bashing me isnt getting you anywhere.

    Like I said I am not a liberal or a conservative , I have my own point of view.

    @gv: Thanks for your support, you seem to be the only one who understands what I am saying.

    Hehehhe, very true wat you said about kashifiat video, i didnt even bother to watch it, i didnt think it was worth my time, and it was kinda personal towards YLH, i dont look into such things. It is not worth disucssing.

    Your points are completely valid and i compltetly agree with you.

    @Ali Abbas: Really?? I havent answered the questions?? Please re read the previous posts, I have answered a million times generally and once bfore specifically each question accompanied with a general analysis.

    @YLH and others: You guyz dont understand what I am saying, to the extent that sometimes we are saying the same thing in different ways and you guyz react to it because the same point is made differently.

    Also I dunt know who kashifiat is and i dunt remember what he said. I like Zaid Hamid and Imran Khan, they are not crooks or mad men, and to admire them or not is my choice and I think I have the freedom to make that choice. Like gv said bashing people aggressivly isnt getting you anywhere. In fact if you look at all the posts all we ahve been doing is repeating the same points over and over again and we are going in circles.

  92. Bloody Civilian


    the Army Chief and Interior Minister

    i haven’t seen any proof they’ve provided specifically on B.Mehsud. until then i would rather rely on the ample proof that he was an enemy. a deadly one, now thankfully dead.

    but what about the rest of my post and questions? is the lack of response to be taken to indicate that you concur, or do you not consider even a bit of it worth responding to?

  93. Bloody Civilian

    …..zaid hamid quoted zero evidence to back up his slandering zafar hilali. imran khan had none to dishonestly divert from the argument to scandalising hoodbhoy as a person.

  94. Bloody Civilian

    go against his own national interests

    who decides that your definition of ‘national interests’ is superior to mine? what if i consider to be national detriment or threat what you consider to be national interest? you should conveniently label me a traitor and an enemy agent???

    and sell his own contry to others??

    so we’re back to witnessing the contract signing ceremony, are we?? i thought we had agreement there.

  95. Bloody Civilian

    Some of the people in the past who behaved like this later on were proven to be agents of a foreign country

    huh????? would you care to explain this peculiar line of argument, please? any examples would be most welcome.

  96. kashifiat

    @Wajid wrote ! “Shaban: what a typical middle class, insecure, opportunist attitude you have”

    What a third class, class consious, discriminatory mummy daddy group approach.

    Shame Shame Shame

  97. kashifiat

    For my posted link

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation”

    Don’t hide the TRUTH

  98. Bloody Civilian


    your second post too is now up. it is natural that a backlog of posts containg links to urls accumulates until someone has the free time to clear it.

    in any case, your post with the youtube video link has always been up.

  99. yasserlatifhamdani

    Kashifiat mian,

    No one will dare accuse you of being educated or reasonable but just for your continuing education … Wajid, myself and most of those commenting here are from the middle class.

    Wajid’s reference to middle class was contextual i.e. in terms of middle class morality… and it is not the upper class looking down at the middle class but a reference more to the earthly concerns of the working class which is not as moralistic or self righteous as the middle class for obvious reasons. This class analysis is applicable everywhere… some of the staunchest right wing Republicans in the US are from the middle class, staunchly christian and uber-patriotic …

    My advice… if you don’t understand something – ask. We will help you understand … because obviously you don’t understand the ways of the world.

  100. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: Can you repost the questions I have not answered?

    I didnt see the zafar hilali thing. But I will agree with your point on IK, he dusnt have proof. Or atleast he didnt give any at that time if there was proof.

    Well I think we can agree on what national interests are, namely defence, soveiregnity, economy etc. There wouldnt be too much dispute on that.

    Your last point, well if you take the example of Yugoslavia, it has been proven that there were many members of the government placed there by the influence of the CIA. this was discovered after teh 1999 bombing when Yugoslavia was separated into different states. Also some of the latin american dictators and african dictators in the past andpresent are proven to be backed by foreign countries and are working against thier own national interests such as Colombia, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia etc.

  101. D_a_n

    @Mustafa Shaban…

    ‘ it has been proven that there were many members of the government placed there by the influence of the CIA. this was discovered after teh 1999 bombing when Yugoslavia was separated into different states. ‘

    What tha…???

  102. wajid

    kashfiat: i would give you a piece of my mind, but you school-boys are going to term it bashing, name calling and what not.

    btw – i read your link and i got to say, you are one frustrated moron and it all comes down to “hoors” for people like you, doesnt it !?!

    Take YLH’s advice, go read some books to help you open your eyes and see things in a bigger perspective.

  103. gv

    My final two bits and than I shall leave you chaps to it.

    1) I don’t think you actually understand what we are agreeing to disagree on.

    2) This entire anti militant/extremist debate is not about our little rarefied clique with our foreign degrees and our air conditioned lifestyles. Yes as a class, the western educated middle class Pakistani is in complete and utter opposition to Islamic militancy. We may punch well above our weight due to wealth and influence but we represent ~1-2% of the total population. We are irrelevant to the greater picture.

    3) Our lifestyles and mind sets are ALIEN to the general public. Yes some of them may want to mimic those lifestyles but there are many others who perceive us as debauched western wannabes who want to convert this country to a facsimile of what they perceive to be a morally lax and anti-Islamic West.

    4) There are many middle class Pakistanis who think that the militants/extremists are the lesser of the two evils because they see them as the harbingers of some ill conceived Islamic renaissance.

    5) In this current atmosphere the word liberal has meta-morphed to mean an immoral western toady. I am now loathe to call myself a liberal. . I have come across many members of our class who support a violent solution to militancy in the tribal areas regardless of the human cost in terms of non-combatants. For an outsider it seems that all that is important to these people is that they are allowed to host fashion shows, local renditions of Broadway musicals and ‘dance’ parties. This is a classic Marie Antoinette syndrome which while not universally true – is the impression that our class gives to those on the outside.

    6) This debate is essentially about the future of Pakistani society. We need to build a united POPULAR front against extremists and militant islamists and we need all the support we can get. Simply put your attitude is arrogant and dismissive towards others who are in agreement with you in principle but simply disagree with your modus operandi. That attitude is not helpful to this cause – it is simply shouting without listening.


    Your language and attitude is totally out of place given the language and attitude that Mustafa and I have used in our threads. I did not even watch the video till Yasser mentioned that no one had condemned it. I may be a bit old fashioned but in my family we were taught to ignore bigots who made personal remarks (in this case fabricated) in civilized company. The more you bring attention to kashif and his off topic remarks the more importance you give him. I am not advocating that we ‘not speak our minds’ I am advocating to be heedful of your audience and their perception of you.

  104. Bloody Civilian

    re. zafar hilali

    google “zafar hilaly zaid hamid’.. and the second result is the youtube video of the relevant episode of ‘sawal ye hai’. i’m sure you won’t mind watching some more of your hero.

    atleast he didnt give any at that time if there was proof

    brilliant! how kind of him!

    so not even a minor misdemeanor, let alone any kind of blemish on his honourability, integrity or reason!

    There wouldnt be too much dispute on that

    really? so there is no need for rational debate? so if there was a dispute that you considered too much, that would be good reason by itself to call your oponent and enemy agent??

    you did not answer who decides where exactly does this permissible, relatively small room for dispute lie??

    re. your latin america, africa, yugoslavia examples.

    what does that prove? that there have been traitors in history?? is that news?? how does that prove that a specific person today, right now, is a traitor or an enemy agent??

    so we can take nothing more than mere patterns of behaviour from a different era, even a different country, continent and context, and apply it to a specific person in the present, in a specific scenario, and declare him or her an enemy agent? apply the benefit of hindsight from an entirely different set of facts to a present, unfolding one??

    with such powerful logic, i can see why people like zaid hamid are your hero.. and how you are another great one in the making.

  105. kashifiat

    @YLH : ” because obviously you don’t understand the ways of the world”

    Yes, I don’t want to see the world as you are seeing it.

    I am seeing the world only & only as Quran & Sunna guide me.

    This world is “Dar-ul amal” & we have to stay here for few days & its our responsibility as we have taken oath to Allah Subhan wa tallah that we will implement & follow His directions


    only His clear guidelines are Deserves to rule.

    & @Wajid, Yes I want Janna, sharab un tahura & hoors in life hereafter, don’t u like the same?

  106. Bloody Civilian


    speaking for mysef, part of this is trying to represent and give a voice to the man in the street. the many, many sensible people in my village. in many villages. and even in the tribal area. from the farmer to the village school teacher. people i know. people i speak to. people at the epicentre and vicinity of the present war.

    as for those who are able to have access to the internet, english language, youtube and this blog… they are not voiceless. whatever reason they may have for demonising the so-called liberals, ignornance of what the liberals or even the educated classes are really about is no part of it.

    i’m sure you and others might also be doing more or less of the same.

  107. Vajra


    Your points 1 to 5 above: perfect. You have made your case, and it is fair. But does it necessarily lead to point 6?

    The core of the disagreement between you and those on the other side, including myself, is that you seem to believe that the rules of free speech apply at all times in all situations to all sorts of people.

    * I believe – to make this personal and absolve others of a similar mind from any errors that i make – that there are situations where free speech has to be abrogated, where allowing it in effect allows our enemies, the enemies of the institutions of the organised state, to wreck morale and destroy the will to resist of the majority.

    * I also believe that the manner in which a doctrine is delivered is important, but less important than the contents of doctrine. So polite delivery by Kashif, and Shaban, are not in themselves worth considering; the delivery remains at whichever dangerous point it has been pitched.

  108. LoudnClear

    @Mr Kashifiat well u make heaven sound like one of those Orgies in Karach mentioned in the original post..
    Why is it one cant be just good for the sake of being good why the carrot to the donkey??

  109. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: I am not saying that IK is an angel, he dus make mistakes and over does certain things. He failed to back his claim with evidence which is a mistake from his side. We both are saying the exact same thing.

    Also as for the traitors yes there is a pattern, you see ambassodors and politicians at any given time are mostly not stupid enough to act against thier own national interests and belittle thier own country towards a foreign power. Hence knowing that they have some level of intellegence i cannot arrive to any other conclusion. Or maybe I am wrong maybe they are just deluded and do not understand how to defend national interest.

    There is need for discussion on national interest ofcourse, there are different view points but they differences are not too significant.

    Also you guyz look too much into small detials and definitions rather than talking about the bigger picture.

    @gv :agreed with some points you have put forward.

    1. The problem is that the other guyz do not want to agree to disagree on anything. They just dunt accept the prescence of another point of view

    2. this is true and false. In terms of size 1-2% is small and dusnt imapct public opinion. On the other hand the educated class has loads of wealth and influence in Pakistan.

    3. True. This is the perception of the common man in Pakistan. Infact it is the curropt elite that make the image worse.

    4. I disagree. The majority of the Pakistani people are against TTP. At the same time they are againstthe curropt elite and see both as great evils.

    5. Very true, the term is used loosly, confused and mixed up hence not a lot of people know the clear definition of liberal.

    6. Very good point. What I have been arguing all along. No offence to the others but you are just shooting yourself in the foot. If you changethe method by which you engage people then you could have gotten more people onto your side.

    You are right about wajid.

    @Wajid: Your comments show your true character, this dusnt belong to a liberal but to someone who is ignorant and dusnt listen. Third class insults come form third class characters. Ususally I try not to be rude but your comments are outrageous.

  110. Mustafa Shaban

    @kashifiat: Heaven is different. It is not a place of mere pleasures but a place of beauty and joy. You make it sound like something different from what it actually is. And a true muslim dusnt think about heaven but ddoes good deeds for the love of Allah and understands that Allah deserves to be obeyed and respected and that is why you do the good deeds.

  111. kashifiat

    Mohtaram Mustafa Shaban, I will be grateful if u can come on my blog, we can do some more constructive discussion there with some liberty.


  112. Mustafa Shaban

    alright kashifiat, what is your blog address??

  113. LoudnClear

    Shaban, kashfiat: “why is it seeing oneself being mirrored you are gettin so uptight, what goes around comes around”

    anyone can see what YLH, Wajid and BC have been trying to make you understand… and thats calling a spade a spade..

  114. Bloody Civilian

    i don’t know what kashifiat means by ‘nai tehzeeb’ but his piece is about rich, spoilt brats. nothing new about that kind.. nor anything civilised. i doubt there are any trust-fund kids here… they would rather be doing what trust-fund kids do.

    kashifiat himself is a middleclass man, i presume.. so he knows exactly what being middleclass is about. it’s about self-made people having to work for a living. so this is NOT about class. not within a group of english-speaking, net-surfing pakistanis.

    as for his liberal fascists article.. not only does he not know what liberal means, he does not know what fascist means either. ironic for someone who wears sectarianism proudly on his sleeve in the case of qadianis.


    what is a case of IK sometimes overdoing it.. is a most disgusting failure of character to me. there is no other way to look at scandalous slander.. esp when used within a civilised debate. no, we’re not saying “the exact same thing” by a million miles. so we can agree to disagree there.

    similarly, what is a mere detail or too much detail to you.. is fundamental and elementary logic and rationality to me. so what you call the ‘big picture’ to me is an utter, ridiculous absurdity. so we can agree to disagree there too.

    Or maybe I am wrong maybe they are just deluded and do not understand how to defend national interest.

    trivial.. isn’t it! what’s a bit of slander as a result of such lazy thinking and loose talk.. as long as you or one of you is not the victim! call them ‘deluded’ or ‘enemy agent’.. what’s the difference. but when YLH calls ZH a ‘madman’ (deluded?) – NOT an enemy agent – he is an intolerant fascist.

  115. Mustafa Shaban

    @Bloody Civilian: Well i think we can also agree to disagree there as well.

  116. Bloody Civilian

    goes without saying, my friend.

  117. gv


    1) I believe in freedom of speech as long as the speaker is not inciting violence and hatred against others.

    2) Where in any of his posts above has mustafa shaban done any of the above or been a sympathiser to the extremist cause as insinuated by others?


    1) I said the western (or english medium) educated elite is a minority that punches well above its weight in terms of wealth and influence but is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things (read long term)

    2) the word i used was ‘many’ not ‘majority’ so i am in agreement with you on the majority perception of the ttp as well.

  118. Mustafa Shaban

    Thanks gv

    agreed to your points.

  119. DCMediagirl

    Wow. I feel like Mom coming downstairs only to discover “the boys” have been up all night talking without pause.

    This whole conversation seems to have strayed off into a weird area involving orgies of some kind. But let me interject some observations:

    Anyone who would defend a dessicated phony baloney like Imran Khan needs to have his head examined.

    The approach being used by some commenters here (and you know who you are) are textbook examples of right-wing “debate”: Create a strawman, set up a phony premise and then attack your hapless opponent for not kowtowing to your irrelevant argument. If you want to see this tactic up close please refer to Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.

    I find it hilarious that there is a friendly debate between what appear to be two individuals who see themselves as devout as to the nature of heaven, with one asserting that the other is incorrect about his vision. I wonder how either of them can be so sure that he is the correct one (and I’m assuming both are “he’s”).

    In any case, this is most entertaining. Please continue.

    Thank God that there are some sensible voices piping in.

    I’m done for now, but please keep up the good work. I’m particularly interested in the observation that the CIA runs everything. In my experience that agency couldn’t find its collective behind with both hands and a flashlight. This was the agency that missed Russian troops pouring across the Afghan border, the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union and other important events that most hack journalists were writing about.

    Carry on.

  120. Mustafa Shaban

    @DC media girl:

    1. The debate for IK is on……i disagree wtih your point of view

    2. I can see Bill O Reully and Sean Hannity;s here…i know those 2 anchors…..and some people here are like them.

    3. Please take names , i do not know who you are talkin bout…..i do not think myslef as righteous and superior anddunt consider myself from heaven or something.

    4. CIA has made some blunders but they are a powerful intellegence agencies that has overthrown governments and armed militias and done loads of other stuff…another debat if you like.

  121. wajid

    Shaban: your responses to YLH, DCMedia and my posts tell that you have no idea of the expressions we have used.
    It’s amusing, not shocking, how right wingers like you have this ability to change topics, distort facts and blame others for your incompetence.

    Kashifat is however a total different case, in fact one of those mentioned in the original post. You know, the orgies and all that.

  122. Mustafa Shaban

    @wajid: you are making no sense, please xplain how i dunt understand the expressions use by others and how i am changing topics and facts and blaming others…..please elaborate….you have no proof and are only throwing around accusations here and there. People accuse me of much but prove so little.

  123. YLH


    “Yes, I don’t want to see the world as you are seeing it. ”

    And who asked you to? That is the point. I don’t want you to change how you view the world and its higher purpose… I just want you to stop abusing those who don’t agree with you… but that is something you are unable to do. You want to impose your views on others.

    I was very surprised by your invitation to Shaban claiming that “you can discuss with liberty”… perhaps Shaban will tell us what it is that we’ve stopped him from saying here. Has any of this posts been censored or deleted or edited? Mustafa please feel free to answer… and please feel free to go join Kashifiat’s blog.

    Kashifiat… just so that you know Mustafa Shaban has already described your video in very colorful terms and I am grateful to him for taking a stand.
    But I’d really like Mustafa Shaban to go to your website and discuss the whole issue of Taliban… and also Zaid Hamid … with Jawwad Khan – your regular.

  124. YLH

    Dear Mr. V,

    I completely agree with your points 1 t0 6. I am not the sort advocating violence against religious conservatives…. but I am certainly for the state to sort out those who infringe upon the fundamental human rights of other citizens… be they conservative or liberal. I am well aware given your unique background why you must abhor all violence and I can only concur with you.

    This article was a direct response to the repetitive abuse against this website and myself by this fellow Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui in his columns in the Jamaat-e-Islami’s mouthpiece “Daily Ummat”.

    I have already responded to the rest of the points and have nothing else to add except reiterate my position.

    Yours sincerely,


  125. YLH

    BC on Kashifiat:

    as for his liberal fascists article.. not only does he not know what liberal means, he does not know what fascist means either. ironic for someone who wears sectarianism proudly on his sleeve in the case of qadianis.

    Well said… unfortunately this is too fine for a philistine like Kashifiat.

  126. YLH

    Kashifiat: “Wajid, Yes I want Janna, sharab un tahura & hoors in life hereafter, don’t u like the same?”

    Good luck.

  127. Vajra


    I was surprised at your response. Considering the encouragement and enthusiastic support extended by Mustafa Shaban to Imran Khan and Zaid Hamid, both themselves currently firmly esconced in the ranks of the sympathisers of the violent and the murderous, it would have seemed that you would have been among the first to raise your voice against this encouragement.

    The question arises: at which point do you draw the line? The man running down the street with a naked sword, striking down all in his path? The man who shouts encouragement and cheers him on, and abuses and heckles those trying to stop the lunatic? The man who prevents officers of the law from rounding up and isolating these cheerleaders, on the ground that their freedom of speech will be affected?

    From your intervention, it is clear that you would disapprove the sword-bearer; it seems to me that you would disapprove the cheer-leaders:
    1) I believe in freedom of speech as long as the speaker is not inciting violence and hatred against others.

    Where we fail to agree is the third category, which is where I place Master Shaban. I have numerous other problems with him and his prolix but meaningless writing, but this is the matter between you and I at this moment. He has not committed violence; he has not advocated violence; he has, on the other hand, been encouraging of those who support the violent.

    If you say that that is far too distant to deprecate his behaviour, it is a question of judgement, finally. Imran Khan, an iconic figure, and a notable philanthrope, is bound to win support from many who might otherwise never have supported the Taliban, the TTP or whichever dim-witted and ferocious fanatic band he endorses; Zaid Hamid, as a professional preacher of conspiracy and consequently a preacher of resistance to these conspiracies, is another troubling figure, who seem to be part of the milieu of murderous militancy that casts a pall over this country.

    I am troubled that your excessively generous, indeed, unrealistic advocacy of civil and human rights extends to figures and their supporting cast who are directly contributing to the violence and intolerance that shadows Pakistani affairs today.

  128. YLH

    dozakh ki dewar pur char kay meine aur shaitan nay dekha

    Sahmi hui hooron kay peechay vahshi mullah bhag rahay thay.

  129. YLH

    There is absolutely NO freedom of speech on Kashifiat’s blog. He has banned some fellow called “Rugger” after claiming that it was YLH writing under another name.

    I am not a Mullah and I don’t post under any other identity but my established nicks… YLH, Yasserlatifhamdani and Greywolf.

  130. kashifiat

    dozakh ki dewar pur char kay meine aur shaitan nay dekha

    Sahmi hui hooron kay peechay vahshi mullah bhag rahay thay.

    Man ! Comeup with some thing new,
    Its ooolddd old ridiculous item is only to make happy, people like u 🙂

    & I will pray that Allah forgive u & gave hidayat & u should not be the same who watch this (Aameen)

  131. dr jawwad khan

    Perhaps that is all there is to it- all the violence seems to stem from a deep seated sexual frustration of the Mullahs. It is because of this frustration, their interpretations of religion revolve around women’s clothing only.

    Dear YLH!
    it seems that you are preoccupied by kashifiat blog… 🙂
    this article is an example.
    most of the participants of kashifiat blog are well educated,religious minded,married with family and kids, having good reputation in the institution they work…..claiming that they are obsessed by sex made me laugh.

  132. YLH

    Here is an even older one:

    humko maloom hai jannat ki haqeekat lekin,

    Dil ko khush rakhne ka galib yeh khyaal accha hai

  133. kashifiat

    YLH & BC
    ‘ for someone who wears sectarianism proudly on his sleeve in the case of qadianis”

    There is no issue of “sectarianism” with Qadianies /Ahmadies /Lahore

    They all togather belongs to different religion & we respect their believes if they perform thier practices in their worship places like Hindues/ Sikhs & Cristians

  134. YLH

    “it seems that you are preoccupied by kashifiat blog”

    And what would you say of the fact that Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui has mentioned me in almost all of his newspaper columns and blogs… for the last five years and has even dedicated a video to me.

    I am just responding to a crook because if you don’t correct a lie it goes on to be accepted as the “Truth”.

  135. kashifiat

    “But I’d really like Mustafa Shaban to go to your website and discuss the whole issue of Taliban… and also Zaid Hamid … with Jawwad Khan – your regular”

    YLH Mian,

    I am feeling pleasure & proud that courageous people Like Dr. Jawwad ,Adnan Siddiqui, Hamara Pakistan, Ahmed Abdullah & Talkhaba & many more are my friends & we love & trust each other for the sake of Allah & expect that we will be togather in Jannah Inshallah in the permenant life of hereafter

  136. kashifiat


    First of all I didn’t load this video on Youtube.

    & whoever developed that video presented documented TRUTH & nothing more than the TRUTH, where everyone can see the real face of ur TRUTH.

    Clan of Naseeb should be exposed & it has exposed

  137. Rugger...


    when you said the following it caught my eye:

    ‘& expect that we will be togather in Jannah Inshallah in the permenant life of hereafter’…

    Even the exalted Prophet (SW) used to keep himself prostrated in front of the Almighty for his forgiveness and mercy as a sign to his flock that none may take for granted passage to Paradise and stated the same…
    As a man who likes to scream and advertise how his faith is in better shape than many of those around him; I find your statement arrogant and with little room for any supplication at the alter of The Almighty… reads as a statement of fact.
    Just thought I’d point it out…
    and No..Im not YLH…..

  138. YLH


    The people you’ve named – inter alia yourself – are all crooks.

    If you are all going to be in paradise, I’ll voluntarily choose hell. Atleast there I’ll be with honest people.

  139. kashifiat

    Rugger !!!

    No matter, what ever u r, u belong to same group of shameless, facshist, misguided so called liberals.

    & Yes u r blocked at Kashifiat due to ur abused language to Dr. Jawwad, where u gave galian to him

  140. Rugger...

    @ Kashifiat…

    ‘Yes u r blocked at Kashifiat due to ur abused language to Dr. Jawwad, where u gave galian to him’

    Indeed I did…Punjabi is such an ‘animated language’ 🙂

    PS: wether I am blocked or not, it is still extreme arrogance from a religious POV to claim that one is destined for Paradise…

  141. kashifiat

    “If you are all going to be in paradise, I’ll voluntarily choose hell. Atleast there I’ll be with honest people”

    Like Hamaan, Shaddad, Firaun, Abu Jehal & Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadianai


    But, I will still Pray to My Lord ! “May Allah Bless u with Hidayat & provide u vision about Fareeza-e-Aqamat-deen” (Aameen)

    Pesonally, I don’t want to see u there 😉

  142. YLH

    Fitnah-e-Maududiat kay ganday anday

    This is a must read. It tells us why we evil liberals were wrong in opposing persecution of minorities and killing of christians in Pakistan.

  143. kashifiat

    YLH mian, Maeray Chanda, MaerayMunnay, Maeray baby,

    Pls see, I didn’t wrote this article


    Bhai jan ! He didn’t say any thing in favor of those who is responsible of Gojra incident.

    He is just presenting the another story of other side.

  144. Bloody Civilian


    re. your sectarianism

    i don’t see anything in even the handful of examples of your writings you have advertised here, from time to time, which says that you treat qadianis anything remotely like “sikhs, hindus and christians”. if that were the case, i would have no problem in agreeing to disagree with you… unless and until you became the PM… where then our disagreement would be about my view that faith, let alone defining it, is no business of the state.

  145. YLH

    You didn’t write it… but you posted it on your blog with fanfare… hence you condone it.

    Enough said.

  146. Search the Web on

    Previous post was addressed to Kashifiat.

  147. YLH

    I am not sure why it says that under my name. Moderators please look into the previous freak occurence.

  148. kashifiat

    @BC “my view that faith, let alone defining it, is no business of the state”

    Faith – Is definitely the business of state by all means.

    I don’t care – U agreed or disagreed

  149. Rugger...


    ‘Faith – Is definitely the business of state by all means.’

    Hence by definition, the August 11 speech of Quaid e Azam was BS?

    did he not say ‘…no business of the state’ somewhere in there?

  150. YLH


    What do you think of this statement by Mahomed Ali Jinnah… speaking as the first governor general of Pakistan and addressing the first session of the first constituent assembly as its first elected president i.e. speaker…. below:

    I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

    Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

    …you keep claiming on your board that we “misinterpret” the speech… and this is according to Islam (we agree that Islam has nothing against this speech) but then do you agree that:

    1. Religion, caste or creed has nothing to do with the business of the state.

    2. All citizens are equal before law regardless of religion, caste or creed… and that there should be no distinctions between Muslim and Non-Muslim?

    3. Religion is the personal faith of an individual.

    Now don’t go about to posting ambiguous references to Islamic principles that may be found in Jinnah’s speeches…. we’ve already conceded that the 11th August speech was perfectly Islamic… now tell us if you agree witht his 11th August speech which was perfectly Islamic and which said that religion was a personal faith of the individual and that the state had no business with an individual’s religion, caste or creed.

    Moderators… please don’t allow Kashif Siddiqui to try and take the discussion off track by quoting irrelevant stuff…

  151. gv


    I largely agree with your views on freedom of speech. The problem seems to lie with our varying interpretations of the views in question.

    For example: ZH should come across to most objective observers as an inciter of hatred and violence vis a vis his entire Hindu-Zionist-Christian-Martian persecution complex. He is intellectually dishonest and uses a warped version of history to propagate his islamo-fascist propaganda.

    However due to his claim of Iqbal as a spiritual mentor, his soft spoken style and his constant pandering to the latent Muslim chauvinism in most Pakistanis – He has garnered considerable support from conservative members of an urdu-medium middle class which is largely anti-extremist but sucked in by his pipe dreams of an Pan-Islamic renaissance. These are people who should rightfully be on the same side as the liberals but are shunned by self styled liberals for not sharing identical world views..

    IK on the other hand (I am not an IK supporter) is rather nebulous – He is clearly against the militants but appears to attribute their rise to some glorified Tribal-Pakhtun chivalric code which is contributing to their growth/strength in the wake of NATO/Pakistan Army (i.e. foreign) incursions into their territory.

    His solution is to focus on the socio-economic development in the area and the rebuilding of state institutions by empowering the locals. Unfortunately it’s very difficult to distinguish between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ tribesman so he gets lumped with the militant sympathisers. IK’s born again holier than thou attitude and constant diatribe against his own ‘english-medium/brown sahib’ class has made him highly unpopular with the western/English medium elite. That does not make him a militant sympathiser.

    To the point of repeating this ad nauseam; the original poster ‘H’ never brought up IK or ZH or any other perceived sympathiser. He merely requested that members of the secular liberal camp review our tactics when dealing with the Islamic conservatives to avoid alienating their support in what is a common cause. i.e. The complete rejection of Islamic militancy and extremism in our society. Instead of arguing with him and his supporters (MS) as equals, a few others ripped into him for being a militant sympathiser (despite his many explanations to the contrary) … that is an entirely unfair and short sighted approach.


    I’m not entirely sure what you are alluding to but no while I would prefer a non-violent solution, I don’t ‘abhor’ violence.. I abhor inequity and prejudice…

    p.s. you need to stop responding to this t**d Kashif.. .he’ll go away by himself.. You give him too much importance..

  152. Bloody Civilian


    I don’t care – U agreed or disagreed

    ditto! ‘unless and until you became the PM’. do read the whole thing and understand it before responding.

    you didn’t respond to the sectarian part. to me your sectarian stand is no different than the law and vigilantes in a christian state using force and violence against muslims in order to remove all mention of jesus from their literature, architecture and discourse since muslims don’t accept him as the son of god.

    i’m not interested the least bit in the ecclesiastical disagreement and details. my issue is with the method, of both a partisan state and vigilante violence.

  153. YLH

    “I would prefer a non-violent solution, I don’t ‘abhor’ violence.. I abhor inequity and prejudice… ”

    Inequity and prejudice… that is the only thing one should abhor…. it is this that we should stand united against uncompromisingly!

    Now I am a bit puzzled by the fact that you didn’t get what I was alluding to… so I’ll speak a little more openly…back in high school, we didn’t know each other very well but I was under the impression that you had come to Pakistan as a consequence of horrific ethnic prejudice, inequity and violence that shook the Balkans in the early 1990s.

    I am sorry if this impression is erroneous.

  154. Bloody Civilian

    … you condone the law being partisan, and incite hatred and, therefore, violence through what i’ve seen of what you write.

  155. Rugger...

    @ gv…

    bit of a sweeping statement?

    ‘latent Muslim chauvinism in most Pakistanis –’

  156. kashifiat

    “Moderators… please don’t allow Kashif Siddiqui to try and take the discussion off track by quoting irrelevant stuff…”

    Classic & pathetic example of

    I am right & others are wrong
    This is another type of ironic terrorism by shameless people

  157. Bloody Civilian

    MS is not a product of the urdu-medium education system. so that generalisation does not apply to him. this is quite separate from a debate about how all generalisations are varyingly imperfect.

    my issue with MS is the utter of lack of logic or ability to reason with any coherence and consistency.

    all of this makes it impossible to have an itelligible debate. so the actual positions he takes become irrelevant as far as any debate is concerned.

  158. gv


    very funny!!


    my observation….. admittedly bit of a generalisation.. but you go ahead and scratch the surface of any of your urbane and sophisticated friends vis a vis our eastern neighbours and see what bubbles up…

  159. Vajra


    Your very interesting post.

    First, it is difficult for me to disagree with the broad perspective of each of the three points you have made. I continue to have quibbles with respect to each, albeit of a wholly unimportant nature.

    Second, I must admit I did feel a sneaking sympathy for H for having phrased his basic position rather clumsily, and inviting himself for a bareback ride on a buzz-saw. IMHO, he could have put his point more elegantly, and he might well have got away with a glancing blow and minor injuries. His core point is fair; perhaps the large number of bigots who come and waft away after an insult or two has given one or two of us, myself included, hair-trigger tempers.

    Third, my difficulties are not with Zaid Hamid and Imran Khan, both of whom are transparent. I agree that they are attracting a lot of people who really should be in the camp of secular democratic Muslims, to avoid using the L word. Their main contribution for evil is that they make it easier to support the actual violence; they contribute the justifications in either specious language or in a faux-chivalrous mediaeval argot which might appeal to the incurably romantic.

    My difficulty is with fan-boys who happen along and peremptorily advise all and sundry to follow one line or the other, for no better reason than that they have come to believe that line. They are devoid of independent thinking, cannot support an argument they make, largely because these are not thought through positions but their favourite opinions, and cannot survive more than three or four exchanges in a discussion because they are utterly incapable of substantiating their stands with evidence. You have been backing one such, perhaps the worst example in recent times, to my unrestrained dismay.

    Finally, your concluding remarks to YLH regarding violence, inequity and prejudice so succintly sum up my own personal position that I am left a little deflated – think of charging a door only to find it open after all. I must explain that this is largely in the context of an increasingly difficult situation against religious fanaticism in Pakistan’s immediate neighbourhood, one that Pakistanis tend to overlook, one that present developments in Pakistan regrettably resonate with.

  160. Vajra


    [Ahem!] 🙂

    And the coming down from Attock and getting accidentally involved with Punjabis argument won’t wash here either. 😀

  161. dr jawwad khan

    YLH mian, Maeray Chanda, MaerayMunnay

    munna barha piyara, “QADS” ka dulara
    koee kahay chand, koee aankh ka tara

    (( 🙂 ))

  162. Rugger...


    ‘ironic terrorism’ …

    i didnt know we were discussing terrorism by Iron man here :). What does that even mean?


    Well scratch the surface…Yes and No. Depends a lot which location you scratch. Also, same is the case I believe with those to the east that you speak off. No better or no worse there in my opinion. Eg, certain states will come off looking much much worse than others. I know you meant not to mislead but felt I should point it out.

  163. yasserlatifhamdani


    We are still waiting for your response on the issue of the 11th August speech which you have yourself claimed to be perfectly Islamic. Please feel free to respond to the questions asked.

    As for your other comment… my suggestion to the moderators is simply to ensure that you don’t move away from the topic by going on a tangent.

    Now… please be a man ( we know it is impossible for the ganda andas of Fitna-e-Maududiat) and give us your response to whether the salient features of that speech are also Islamic and if those features are Islamic… what should one make of your claims that state ought to discriminate on the basis of faith?

    Please stick to the questions and don’t indulge in dishonesty which is your hallmark otherwise.

  164. yasserlatifhamdani


    I am sorry it was intended to be funny. I am still confused if I am right or wrong.

  165. PMA

    gv: You have a calm, mature and sensible way of saying things. I think you have given a very good analysis in your November 4, 2009 (10:58 pm) comments above. I like your style. Hope to hear more from you.

  166. Mustafa Shaban

    @PMA: totally agreed i want to hear more from you and gv

  167. Vajra

    @Mustafa Shaban

    totally agreed i want to hear more from you and gv

    Agreed with whom? You agree with yourself a lot, it is quite clear; anybody else? Or are you thinking of ‘I, me, myself’?

  168. yasserlatifhamdani

    It would be wrong to assume that the debate between the two parties here has any similarity to Clarence Darrow- William Bryan Jennings debate or the Scopes trial…

    We are not going into the higher purpose of life…. we are more concerned about people simply being allowed to live their lives according to their lights…

  169. Mustafa Shaban

    @Vajra: Agreed with PMA and gv…..well its my opinion that is why i agree with it. Whats your problem I can agree or disagree with anyone I want

  170. Bloody Civilian


    ‘the emperor has no logic’ wouldn’t have worked, would it, now? the warm, fuzzy, clothed feeling would have continued, unperturbed. well, even fairytales can’t completely defy logic. children won’t buy it. you need an adult for that.

  171. gv

    @vajra, bc, rugger

    point(s) taken and thanks for putting up with my soap box!!

  172. PMA

    I concur with gv when he says and I paraphrase:

    “This militant/extremist debate is not about our rarefied clique with our foreign degrees and our air conditioned lifestyles alien to the general public. It is true that there are many who perceive us as debauched western wannabes who want to convert Pakistan to a facsimile of what they perceive to be morally lax and anti-Islamic West. We are a very very small specialized group irrelevant to the greater picture.”

    So the question is how do we, the ones who care enough to think about our homeland and care enough to debate on forums like this become relevant to the total picture. Are we concerned about the present situation in Pakistan simply because, as gv says, that we see our lifestyles, fashion shows, Broadway musicals, and ‘dance’ parties being threatened, or do we debate because we are genuinely concerned about the future of our country, Pakistan?

    My feeling is that our class, the privileged upper-middle class of Pakistan that for the last sixty years has not given a damn to our poor and the lower-middle classes is in here for its own selfish reasons. We are a selfish self-absorbed bunch. Now that our lifestyles are under threat, we have come out and want our military and our government to save our collective ass from those barbarians. We want them to be killed at all cost.

    But wait. I too want my country to return to normalcy. I too want to build a united popular front against militant/extremist islamists. But we need to reach others outside our self imposed class structure. As gv says, we need to reach out and find all the support we can get. We need to drop our attitude of arrogance. We need to stop this pseudo liberal-conservative divide. We need to stop shouting and start listening. We need to built consensus. We need to become relevant once again.

  173. “Islam is a rational faith” ?? I am sure this has been discussed in the comments above with I haven’t read but how can faith be rational? Quite a perplexing statement!

    Faith is directly opposed to rationalism. It’s based on the ignorance of reality and refers to something that only exists in people’s minds or fantasies and for which there’s no real evidence.

  174. Bloody Civilian


    looking forward to seeing more of you on your soap box 🙂

  175. YLH


    Yes it must be quite perplexing. Frankly I am not interested in a futile discussion that ignores the ground realities of the task before us …

    In any event a study of the history of Mutazillah and Ismailism will perhaps help you understand that some of us can make perplexing statements and get away with them.

  176. wajid

    Dear gv, 
    PTH is more than a blog to me, it’s the Pak Tea House, only virtual, if you know what i mean – so I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t tell me that I am out of line here, especially when i have not addressed you in any such manner. 
    It’s my way to treat these ring wing lunatics, and ‘stay politie’ policy doesn’t work all the time. 
    You have also suggested to ignore them and they will go away but I think we have ignored them enough and now should take them on and keep them on their toes. 
    You will see them falling like a house of cards and whining like babies eg kashfiat
    am just pushing the boundires, so relax buddy and do things your own way. 

    p.s. I like your 6 points!

  177. Thanks for pointing me towards Mu’tazilah, a respectable endeavour, but it still ultimately based on an irrational belief and faith in a primeval deity who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, the source of creation, blah blah blah…One could rationally argue the characterististics of such a being as the Mu’tazilis do but ultimately it’s still based on irrational faith due to a lack of material and reproducible evidence in favour of such a deity.

    But you are right, that’s a debate for the thologians and takes away from the ground realities of the task.

  178. Vajra


    May I hope you will contribute more often?

  179. Shanzae


  180. yasserlatifhamdani

    Given that science itself does not concern itself with the metaphysical or the spiritual and therefore has no way of disproving or proving the issue of this deity … I’d say it is quite possible to describe a religious system as rational on other characteristics.

    I myself am not convinced about the deity but I do consider Islam a rational religion…

  181. Mustafa Shaban

    @Cubano I totally disagree with you, Islam is a rational faith and way of life. I think you have been watching too much news and have not done any independant research of Islam and its various sects. This can be seen in the world, where the critics of Islam sound convincing but when you look closely they do not understand Islam and are actually criticizing Islamic extremism which is actually anti Islam.

  182. Vajra

    @Mustafa Shaban

    Please do some basic, elementary homework on these concepts before you inflict pain on all others.

    A faith, any religious faith is irreconcilable with any rational method or process.

    There is no such thing as a rational faith and there cannot ever be.


    How long must we suffer this nincompoop? Can’t we wait at least until he passes high school?

  183. The rationality of other characteristics such as religious legal systems, economics etc could be sruitinized but ‘rational faith’ is an oxymoron.

  184. kashifiat

    @Mustafa Shaban

    Bhai, HERE all are PHDs

    Phira hua dimagh 🙂

  185. yasserlatifhamdani


    Agreed. Ofcourse the scrutiny of religion/faith on a pure rational plain is impossible. However my suggestion from my statement has more to do with my priorities.

    Perhaps if I was to amend the above statement “Islam is a rational faith” to “Islam is – as a religio-legal system- rational in approach to purely secular i.e. temporal matters” it would be more logical.

    Ofcourse this does not have the desired impact I am looking for…

  186. Mustafa Shaban

    @ Vajra: Well Islam is a religion of Allah and almost every Islamic rule and concept has been logically and scientifically proven. It is proven that Islam has the answers to he problems people face today.

    Also you are free to disagree with my views and counter them.


    Please let us not personalize this debate. It is not what rational and intellectual people do. You may be a PHD or a university graduate or some world reknown scholar but if your attitude is shit than all your credibility goes down the drain.

  187. PMA

    “I myself am not convinced about the deity but I do consider Islam a rational religion…”

    Yasser: You have me confused. God is central to the religion Islam. How can you doubt the existence or the nature of the very central piece of a system and then go on to say that the system is rational. Islam claims that it is system from god for his people. Either Islam together with its concept of god is rational or it is not. It can not be both. Pick your side. And if you are saying that the ‘system minus the god of Islamic concept’ is rational then I am afraid you are talking about an irreligious system that sounds more like ‘humanitarianism’. In that case why to hang on to Islam? Seems like you want to maintain your ‘liberal-progressive-secular’ credentials but at the same time don’t want to let the religion go; in case their is really one ‘qahar’ and ‘jabbar’ up there! Have fun!!

  188. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear PMA,

    I am not hanging on to anything …. I am simply defending the statement I made in the article.

    I have already explained my view in my post before this one.

  189. PMA

    Dear, My Dear Yasser. Brewages are best when blended! Aren’t they?

  190. wajid

    Vajra: you hurt MS’s feelings, now he’ll disagree with you. :p

  191. Sarwar

    I have an idea: Let us replace crescent and star on our national flag with a grain of wheat — the symbol used to explain the reason of expulsion of Adam and Eve from heaven.

  192. Mustafa Shaban

    @wajid: Ofcourse I dunt disagree with people just because they attack me personally, its just that you dunt attack people personally over a debate, but if thats the attitude you guyz wanna put up then thats fine.

  193. Vajra


    Omigosh! What’d I do? Please, please tell me. Does it mean the little insect is angry and will buzz off? Then I’ll do it again and again.

  194. Dcmediagirl

    What, is this thread finished? Noo!!! Someone break a glass or something…

  195. vajra


    A fact of life that will soon become apparent to you, rendered from the lofty heights of my three score years:

    Everybody likes to discuss everybody else’s unnatural obsession with sex.

  196. Unimpressed

    What a silly article. Once again we are treated to te fashionable rubbish being promoted by the likes of Yaser Hamdani who is NOT a member of the Muslim community but belongs to the British inspired Ahmedi cultist. Hamdani’s writing remains as ever the dull lazy nonsense he used to post back on
    Pakistan’s secular liberal elites will go on blaming the “mullahs” but the fact of the matter is that they have run the country from the beginning. They sold their country to Pax Americana and what a fine mess it is in today. They hate Islam and anyone who practices it. These parasites must be uprooted from Pakistani society and sent backing back to the masters in the West.

  197. Unimpressed

    and really Hamdani old chap, just come out and admit you’re an atheist. But I guess that would be a hard sell being that you want to come off as the voice of the average Pakistani. The average Pakistani loves Islam and despises the secular elites you represent. I find it laughable that you want to bring up rationality when you belong to the most pathetic cult to emerge from the Indian subcontinent i.e Ahmedism.
    To subject the deep and rich spirituality of Islam to the Godless “rationality” of western entropy simply reflects how little you know about the faith.

  198. vajra

    What a silly comment. Once again we are treated to the fashionable rubbish being promoted by yet another camp-follower of the Mullahs, who have no clue about the religious affiliations of Yasser Hamdani, will not as a matter of demagogic amour propre ask him, and have the gall to call him a British-inspired Ahmedi cultist, thereby indicating the stand of the commenter on religious liberty without any further effort. This writing remains as ever the shrill, illogical nonsense that escapees from the asylum have been using on this blog-site, abusing the broad freedom that they enjoy here, in contrast to their own narrow ways.

    Pakistan’s fundamentalist religious conservative mob-leaders will go on blaming the rational parts of society, but the fact remains that they have made it impossible for a civilian administration to run the country from the beginning. They have sold their country to Pecuniae Arabica and what a fine mess it is today. They hate Islam outside their narrow sect and anyone who practises it. These parasites must be uprooted from Pakistani society and sent packing* back to the masters in the desert.

    *Substituting ‘b’ for ‘p’ is a well-documented Arabic mispronunciation: thus, Bakistan for Pakistan. A Freudian slip, looks like.

  199. vajra

    As you may have noticed, gentle readers, the same substitutions applied make for mirthful reading. Down to the antediluvian ‘old chap’.

    What would life be without these humourless, tinpot dictators and their ruffian entourage, who have so much to say about everybody else’s faults that they have no time to look at their own?

  200. Majumdar

    Babu Vajrangi,

    Pakistan’s fundamentalist religious conservative mob-leaders have made it impossible for a civilian administration to run the country from the beginning.

    I beg to differ here. The country was hobbled by its feudal-military elite not by the mullah. The mullah was a mere pawn in the hands of the establishment, till some of them went out of hand like Frankenstein and our own Bhindranwale.

    If I may remind you none of the dramatis personae who were responsible for the undermining of the first civilian admin- Ayub, GM and Munir were mullahs – the last named in fact gave one of the most devastating indictment of the mullah in the famous Munir report.


  201. yasserlatifhamdani

    Dear Unimpressed mian,

    I am not an Ahmadi and I don’t have any brief for their religious views. However I stand for their constitutional rights and fundamental human rights… and I also realize that while crooks like the Mullahs you follow were abusing Quaid-e-Azam as “Kafir-e-Azam” and Pakistan as “Kafiristan”…. Ahmadis were in the forefront of the Pakistan Movement.

    To hear a ridiculous little crook like you speak of “These parasites” who “must be uprooted from Pakistani society and sent backing back to the masters in the West.” The only parasites here are people like you. But don’t worry we like to deal with our problems ourselves.

  202. Milind Kher

    It is becoming increasingly clear that there are many Pakistanis, especially the educated ones, who are not very impressed with obscurantist mullahs. And it is this philosophy which will keep Pakistan modern and progressive.

    This is important for peace and stability in the region. Folks at PTH have a positive mindset. That is good

  203. vajra

    @Babu Majumdar

    You may have noticed that your corruption of my name, calling me Vajrangi, distorts my political and social position grossly. Kindly desist from this kind of disparagement and similar schoolboy humour; as you point out frequently, this is not Chowk, where they might find it waggish and droll. The last person to use this pathetic aid to add emphasis to his comments was TM; I am persuaded that you do not wish to be bracketed with a person who was such a disaster, even by right-wing standards.

    Second, I beg to disagree with your begging to differ. As we have discussed many times, from the moment of Jinnah’s passing away, the tendency in his erstwhile flock was to look nervously at the Mullahs on the fringes, since Maudoodi had immigrated into Pakistan by then, and take a series of unnecessary religious steps. You say that the feudal-military elite was driving the show; I say that they were reacting at every step, rather than acting on their own, based on principles and philosophies, because they were unable to come up with any principles or philosophies distinct from that purveyed by the Mullahs in the absence of Jinnah.

    Who is to say which of us is correct?

    Third, your nomination of the feudal-military elite is a little loose at the edges, since it was originally the allegedly secular civilian elite that led this panicky drift in the direction of religion. To be precise, long before GM, Munir and Ayub, there was a line of ineffective civilian PMs who slid and slid and slid from their leader’s starting position. To start with Ghulam Mohammed is reasonable; to bring in Munir, or Ayub, is to ignore an unreasonably long duration during those early years.

  204. DCMediagirl

    @Vajra: You’re right. “Unnatural obsession” is a very polite way of characterizing some of the more loony comments I’ve read here. This is a fantastic thread with an abundance of foolishness.

  205. Milind Kher

    @DCMediagirl. Never complain about loony comments. Aren’t they what the media thrives on? 🙂

  206. vajra

    @Milind Kher

    Your herculean efforts at keeping the media in thriving condition is indeed commendable. Keep the bin flying.

  207. Milind Kher


    Don’t worry. Won’t let you down :p

  208. DCMediagirl


    Returning to the point of the original post…if this story is accurate it certainly adds to your point:

  209. Rashid

    Dear all:
    Sorry, I just could not resist posting this very funny clip:
    Point Blank with Mubashir Luqman on Express News December 10, 2009 show.
    Watch @ 16minutes: Alama Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer (son of Alama Ihsan Elahi Zaheer) of Al-Hadith party, Pakistan, and Hafiz Salman Butt of Jamaat-I-Islami, Pakistan ALLOWING host Mr. Mubashir Luqman to take Londi (Concubine) Ms. Rani Mukhar Ji of India, if some how one day Pakistan conquers India. And host Mr. Mubashir Luqman can even father children with Rani Mukhar Ji withOUT marring her (i.e. solemnizing marriage). But Pakistani women canNOT take Indian dudes as their slaves for sex.
    Hay Indian dudes, you guys will be losing much more than a piece of land if STUDS of Pakistan walk our your territory. (Thank God, US and UK occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan does not know about this “permission”).
    (BTW: My understanding of Holy Quran says, even the “owner” of slave women i.e. war captive, has to MARRY her, just like any Muslim man and woman marries, before having sex with her).
    Conclusion at end by host is also worth listening.
    Check video clip on:
    www dot awaz dot tv

  210. vajra


    After fifteen years of exposure to the Internet, I am no longer surprised at what turns people on. If the people you have mentioned, erm, look hard enough, they may find a site addressing their specific needs. Tell them not to lose hope.

    Presumably a psychiatrist might say that in times of mortal danger, the libido plays a great part in reviving spirits. This can be the only reason for might otherwise seem a barmy excursion into juvenile delinquent fantasy.